prizeframe From France, joined Nov 2012, 8 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10170 times:
Hey!
Researching the pilot job market right now as a student.
Do you think/know if the pilot job market is going to boom? For what types of pilots?
I saw two articles stating just that and I'd like to learn more about the subject - if it's true or not.
If there's anything that points to the opposite, and sources on that would be great.
Is Boeings predictions valid?
Is there any number or estimation on if it there's a lot of unemployed pilots? If not, you think it's a big number or just a small amount?
I value your views and would be awesome to get more educated about this.
Acey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1341 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10225 times:
The consensus among many is that with the upcoming flight time requirements, new duty rigs and large numbers of retirements, it will create the need for pilots. The major airlines though will not have a shortage however, because of the number of qualified applicants from the regional and (to a lesser extent) corporate ranks. The regional airlines will feel the strain from this, and some already have. My airline is desperately trying to hire and can't find more than a handful, and it will only get worse as time goes on. Once the major airlines begin to hire in earnest, it will get interesting. Hopefully this will cause pay and work rules to improve in order to attract new applicants, though I'm not holding my breath for that.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10217 times:
Quoting prizeframe (Thread starter): Do you think/know if the pilot job market is going to boom? For what types of pilots?
The demand is going to boom for ATP's. That may nor may not turn into improved wages and conditions for ATPs...piloting is one of those industries that, I believe, will always suffer from huge over-supply.
Quoting prizeframe (Thread starter): Is there any number or estimation on if it there's a lot of unemployed pilots? If not, you think it's a big number or just a small amount?
There are tons of people who are pilots who aren't employed as pilots; they're not unemployed though, they just have non-pilot jobs.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7996 posts, RR: 27 Reply 4, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10203 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2): piloting is one of those industries that, I believe, will always suffer from huge over-supply.
I think that will get less and less true as time goes on. With the new airline hiring requirements (1500 hrs, ATP), many, many pilots are deciding that the road is just not one worth traveling. I mean, really, you spend tens of thousands to get through your commercial, a few thousand more on a CFI, you spend however many months CFIing until you can get picked up flying boxes in the back of a Piper for no money, you do that for 1,000 more hours, then you finally get hired at an airline and the big payoff is…. 22,000k/year? Garbage work rules? Commuting? Crash pads? Labor disputes?
Pilots have never been pilots for the pay, the industry has always sucked, but there's just absolutely no incentive anymore.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14360 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10204 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2): The demand is going to boom for ATP's. That may nor may not turn into improved wages and conditions for ATPs...piloting is one of those industries that, I believe, will always suffer from huge over-supply.
I would tend to agree. No matter where the requirements go or what the pay is like, shiny jet syndrome will ensure a steady stream of pilots for those who need them. If the government requires more hours, guys will do it because they like to fly. Plus the carrot of the relatively few well paying jobs at the top of major airlines, which most pilots will never approach.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10203 times:
Here are some of the questions that you will have to ask yourself. Are doing it because you love to fly, or is it just another way of making a living? Are you willing to go to where the work is? Could be overseas (ex. Emirates or Cathay Pacific,) or the opposite end of the country. Are you willing to fly cargo with an even more so unorthodox schedule? Can you live on peanuts until you get the right gig? (Could be 10-15 years+) Can you get into military fixed wing flight training? Army WO flight training is great but there are just not a whole lot of professional helicopter jobs out there, and they are even more so unconventional and the pay is on average, meager.
Personally, I think the 1,500 hour rule will be changed before it becomes implemented because it was more so pushed by bureaucrats who don't know jack about the industry than it was the actual FAA. However, given the current level of unbelievable incompetence in D.C. right now, I wouldn't count on it. Half the current pilots in the US are over 50 so it's only logical that there will be a lot of vacancies in the next 15 years.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10203 times:
What I've seen from flight schools across the US is that there simply aren't enough new students coming up through the pipeline to satisfy the demand in the years to come.
Sure, the majors will be the last to get hurt since they are the far end of that pipeline, but the shortage is real, and it's going to hurt the bottom end first. In my 30+ years of hanging around airports (as well as working in the industry) I've never seen it so dead at both the local/regional flight schools, as well as the 'big' pilot factories & colleges.
Getting through the process of becoming a pilot takes years, so a shortage of new-starts that began before the 2008 recession would hardly be noticed right now. But as the economy picks up and pilots begin to retire in larger numbers again, the pressure will grow rapidly on regionals, cargo operators, air taxis, night freight airlines, and everyone else that depends on a steady supply of newly-minted pilots to sit in their cockpits. This is an industry that has a very long-leadtime for the production of highly skilled workers (pilots). That supply has been cut off for so long though, that the effects are finally being felt, as Acey559 said in reply #1
Ask any flight school anywhere, and you'll see that times are tough (if you're a flight school). If you are an aspiring pilot, the market couldn't be better.
Quoting N766UA (Reply 4): I think that will get less and less true as time goes on. With the new airline hiring requirements (1500 hrs, ATP), many, many pilots are deciding that the road is just not one worth traveling. I mean, really, you spend tens of thousands to get through your commercial, a few thousand more on a CFI, you spend however many months CFIing until you can get picked up flying boxes in the back of a Piper for no money, you do that for 1,000 more hours, then you finally get hired at an airline and the big payoff is…. 22,000k/year? Garbage work rules? Commuting? Crash pads? Labor disputes?
This has been true in the industry essentially forever. It's not a new phenomenon. Have patience, and you will be rewarded. If you're looking for a quick payday, forget it.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
My pleasure. I work for American Eagle. We went through a big hiring boom last year, which was stymied by bankruptcy. We stopped hiring and furloughed 50 pilots. Shortly after, they were recalled and it was announced that we'd begin hiring again. The company knew they had to furlough in order to scare us into a new contract, but also knew that we had to retain as many as possible because finding new applicants would be difficult in the face of losing a large chunk to attrition. We officially recalled and out of 70, about 12 came back. We're now hiring but with the nee minimums (1500 hours, etc) we've only been able to find about 10 people since we started about a month ago, and it's expected to get more difficult. The company is now floating a $5,000 signing bonus on addition to higher first year pay (which is against out contract, but that's a different story). The company is desperate for people and they're just not out there, at least people who want to work here. If you have any other question, feel free to email/message me.
TWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 764 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10194 times:
Word on the street is there is supposed to be a big shortage coming up, at least in the US, of commercial (I think) pilots. And with this new 1500 rule, the shortage may last quite a while, and may even get bigger.
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10193 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5): No matter where the requirements go or what the pay is like, shiny jet syndrome will ensure a steady stream of pilots for those who need them. If the government requires more hours, guys will do it because they like to fly.
There will always be those people, but I doubt there will be enough of them to fill all the spots that are going to be vacant. The regionals are probably going to get hit hard in a year or two, and it will be very interesting to see how things shake out.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
trent772 From Colombia, joined Oct 2012, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10194 times:
If airlines get so shorthanded that the situation turns difficult for operators to find qualified pilots in the US, do you think the Government will ever open its doors to foreign pilots?
A little too much wishful thinking on my part?
If being on a plane is flying, is being on a boat swimming?
as739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5821 posts, RR: 23 Reply 13, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10188 times:
Quoting trent772 (Reply 11): If airlines get so shorthanded that the situation turns difficult for operators to find qualified pilots in the US, do you think the Government will ever open its doors to foreign pilots?
No . the Government will stick it's foot in it's mouth realizing it made a huge mistake in raising min's to 1500. It was a reactionary move, mainly after the Colgan crash, to please the public. What the public forgets is that flying is safer than it's ever been. Also, the public outcry will now cause higher airfares in the future as pilots demand more money for their services.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
silentbob From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1646 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10187 times:
I don't know if reducing the 1500 to 500 would even be enough to fill the needs at the regional level in the next 3-5 years. I would not be surprised to see someone petition for single pilot operations at the regional level.
xjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2345 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 10185 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 14): I don't know if reducing the 1500 to 500 would even be enough to fill the needs at the regional level in the next 3-5 years. I would not be surprised to see someone petition for single pilot operations at the regional level.
I would be shocked if anyone wants to petition single pilot operations, ever, at least for 50+ seat aircraft.
A lot of people forget that prior to the government intervening, the hour requirements were mainly set by airline (or corporate or cargo) insurance mins. required. Perfect example of the government screwing something up yet again.
As I have feared, unless something is done with this new government reg, the aviation landscape will change like crazy, and more for the worst.
BostonMike From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10181 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 14): I don't know if reducing the 1500 to 500 would even be enough to fill the needs at the regional level in the next 3-5 years. I would not be surprised to see someone petition for single pilot operations at the regional level.
I had the dubious distinction of learning flight procedures in a Link Trainer eons ago. My retirement flight was in command of a 777. Needless to say the level of automation developed dramatically during that period. The sophistication of drone reconnaissance and attack aircraft is increasing exponentially. Military drones now have the capability to self-determine targeting possibilities. Could there be a petition to drop the third pilot on some international flights? Yes. How long will it be until someone feels comfortable petitioning for a single pilot/robotic-assist designation?
Aviation like medicine and law are changing dramatically. Whether the cost of flight training today can be offset by a rewarding career over the next thirty years is a question best left to others.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 19, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10179 times:
Quoting trent772 (Reply 11): If airlines get so shorthanded that the situation turns difficult for operators to find qualified pilots in the US, do you think the Government will ever open its doors to foreign pilots?
A little too much wishful thinking on my part?
I believe that will be one of the options that they will look at. But here's something to keep in mind: the whole reason that would be considered is because the regionals (who would be the ones hit) don't want to pay more money to attract applicants. If that's the case, why would experienced foreign pilots with ATP qualifications want to come over to the US to work for peanuts when they could find better paying jobs elsewhere in the world.
That said, I do agree with as739x that you will probably see a reduction in the legal minimums before you see a program to expedite getting visas for foreign pilots (you can work as a pilot right now in the US if you can get a visa, but that can of course be a difficult process).
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 18): Could there be a petition to drop the third pilot on some international flights? Yes. How long will it be until someone feels comfortable petitioning for a single pilot/robotic-assist designation?
I could see reduced crewing on long-haul flights relatively soon, but I think it will be decades before we ever see single-pilot airliners. Not saying it won't happen, because it eventually will, but it'll be a while.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
jonnyclark From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10179 times:
As this is currently very Americo-centric, thought I would balance the worldwide view. I have just finished my training in Europe, and now just starting my type rating for a very large LCC in Europe. I've been VERY lucky to actually get a job. Most people coming out of the aviation schools right now in the UK at least, are really struggling to find a job. As they will continue to do so for a while. There just isn't enough jobs out there for the cadets who are finishing. There are literally hundreds of employable cadets who just can't find a job. Out of my course, only 2 out of 17 cadets have managed to secure a job 6 months after completion. That's self funded, and to our American cousins, at a cost of roughly $140-150,000. You can just imagine what that means.
Most European carriers have actually slowed down their airplane deliveries by the looks of things, and other airlines crumbling, the market is starting to stagnate. In Europe, I would wait to start training until at least either of the two major low cost carriers make another plane order.
76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10183 times:
Quoting prizeframe (Thread starter): Is there any number or estimation on if it there's a lot of unemployed pilots?
Dutch pilot union VNV-Dalpa just did some research on the jobless rate and found about 1000 recent graduates unemployed without any prospect of finding a job. That's in the Netherlands alone.
I'm kinda confused about where you're from. Your profile says Nice, but your name suggests otherwise. The job markets east and west of the pond are quite different, to put it mildly. Having worked on both sides, I should know.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 22, posted (6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10179 times:
Quoting jonnyclark (Reply 20): Out of my course, only 2 out of 17 cadets have managed to secure a job 6 months after completion. That's self funded, and to our American cousins, at a cost of roughly $140-150,000. You can just imagine what that means.
Ouch. I feel for your compatriots. That surplus pool is why I wonder how much of these articles are the schools trying to drum up interest.
Quoting 76er (Reply 21): Dutch pilot union VNV-Dalpa just did some research on the jobless rate and found about 1000 recent graduates unemployed without any prospect of finding a job. That's in the Netherlands alone.
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 18): Whether the cost of flight training today can be offset by a rewarding career over the next thirty years is a question best left to others.
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 23, posted (6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10007 times:
There is a glut of pilots, just as there always has been, and this glut will continue.
One exception MIGHT BE a drying up of the applicant pool at the regional level. For good reasons (low pay, hostile work environments, very little attrition and hiring at the majors, etc.). Thus this whole "pilot shortage" discussion needs to be re-phrased:
There will be no pilot shortage, per se. What there might be, however, is a shortage of pilots willing to work for very low wages, in poor work environments.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12564 posts, RR: 64 Reply 26, posted (6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10210 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 24): Quoting Mir (Reply 19):I think it will be decades before we ever see single-pilot airliners.
Not decades... we'll start to see SP's within 15 years.
Negative; it will be decades, if ever. Besides, any carrier flying with only one pilot will suddenly find themselves having a huge marketing disadvantage as competitors tout the fact that, unlike a single-pilot flight deck carrier, "We take your safety seriously."
Sorry, I just don't see single-pilot flight decks at the majors. Ever.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 27, posted (6 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10373 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 26): Sorry, I just don't see single-pilot flight decks at the majors. Ever.
Less than 4 years ago most people discussing this area on A.net also said that we would not EVER see a car that could drive in traffic autonomously... and Google has now been doing this for a couple of years all over California on - freeways and in cities. Most people think in a linear scale whereas information technology advances exponentially.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
xjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2345 posts, RR: 52 Reply 28, posted (6 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10277 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 27): Less than 4 years ago most people discussing this area on A.net also said that we would not EVER see a car that could drive in traffic autonomously... and Google has now been doing this for a couple of years all over California on - freeways and in cities. Most people think in a linear scale whereas information technology advances exponentially.
You all are confusing the difference between the technology being there vs public perception.
Just because the technology and capability exists, doesn't mean the public will embrace the concept of an aircraft being piloted by a single pilot no matter how safe you can present it. I can see it now, government law requires the airlines to show if the aircraft will have one or two pilots.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 29, posted (6 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10290 times:
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 25): Lots of know it alls with the single pilot thing... Even heavy trains aren't single manned and they just go forward and backward
1) We've had single pilot ops for decades. Whether it makes it into Part 121 service is a different question, but pretending we don't know how do single pilot ops is just ignoring reality.
2) Heavy trains run long missions...your average subway train carries way more people than any airliner and has only one "pilot".
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 30, posted (6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10193 times:
Quoting xjramper (Reply 28): Just because the technology and capability exists, doesn't mean the public will embrace the concept of an aircraft being piloted by a single pilot no matter how safe you can present it.
The public already knowingly flies on single pilot aircraft in scheduled commercial service. The only thing we're quibbling about here is scale.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 31, posted (6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10170 times:
121 airliners are a totally different ballgame than a citation or a premier. Sorry.
There are no single pilot 121 airliners even on the drawing board or proposed... so for the discussion of the impending pilot shortage, your point has no relevance. On top of that, the systems and operational complexity of a large airliner is on a completely different scale than the current certified single pilot light jets out there today.
It will be decades at the very least for what you propose to possibly become reality...
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14360 posts, RR: 26 Reply 32, posted (6 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10125 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30): The only thing we're quibbling about here is scale.
The biggest hurdles for single pilot operations on airliners will not be technological. Getting passengers, regulators, and pilot groups on board will be far more challenging than building an airliner that can effectively operated by one pilot.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
xjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2345 posts, RR: 52 Reply 33, posted (6 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10133 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30): The public already knowingly flies on single pilot aircraft in scheduled commercial service. The only thing we're quibbling about here is scale.
Tom.
Where? Every single 50+ seater is driven by two pilots in commercial service. I will give you Cair. But that's a less than 9 pax aircraft.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 34, posted (6 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10079 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29): 1) We've had single pilot ops for decades. Whether it makes it into Part 121 service is a different question, but pretending we don't know how do single pilot ops is just ignoring reality.
Accident statistics say that SP ops are more dangerous, though.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 35, posted (6 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10064 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32): The biggest hurdles for single pilot operations on airliners will not be technological. Getting passengers, regulators, and pilot groups on board will be far more challenging than building an airliner that can effectively operated by one pilot.
Exactly. I'm fully onboard with the idea that it will never fly (pun only partly intended) due to lack of market acceptance. But that's a completely different issue than the spurious idea that it's a technology problem.
Quoting xjramper (Reply 33): Where? Every single 50+ seater is driven by two pilots in commercial service. I will give you Cair. But that's a less than 9 pax aircraft.
All those DHC Beavers, Otters, and Twin Otters running around in the world are certified for single pilot ops.
Quoting Mir (Reply 34): Accident statistics say that SP ops are more dangerous, though.
True. I would suggest that's largely because most SP ops today are done by pilots with less training than ATPs flying aircraft that are much less stringently certified than Part 21.
ATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 482 posts, RR: 3 Reply 36, posted (6 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10045 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35): All those DHC Beavers, Otters, and Twin Otters running around in the world are certified for single pilot ops.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30): The public already knowingly flies on single pilot aircraft in scheduled commercial service. The only thing we're quibbling about here is scale.
If I may offer another prospective from an enroute air traffic controller, while the flying public may generally be ok with single pilot operations, I AM NOT! We cant avoid a number of civilian flights going with an incapacitated pilot and inexperienced right seater, and that is something we need to deal with and get over, but to do this in commercial service? HELL NO! It is not providing a service to a paying passenger to put them in that situation. I know there are some smaller planes where this happens (even in commercial service) and it is wrong. I for one am vehemently opposed to single pilot operations.
As for the OP topic, I normally would not have thought so given the huge boom then incredible bust 10 years ago. I know there are hundreds of airline jet pilots still on furlough waiting for their spot to come back. Having talked to a few pilots from AWE on a recent FAM, I have also learned they have alienated a VAST majority of these and they are no longer willing to come back. With the relatively senior pilots for AWE, I can see this opening a big number of pilot slots, and other airlines could be the same, I am just unfamiliar with their situations.
The industry is going to be in a constant need for pilots and that will certainly help the situation, along with a good number retiring, but asking if there is going to be a huge 'boom' of pilot hiring, I just cant fathom a situation where it would occur.
My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 37, posted (6 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10024 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35): All those DHC Beavers, Otters, and Twin Otters running around in the world are certified for single pilot ops.
Those are very very small operations with very small airplanes with a very small amount of passengers into very small areas of the world with very high accident rates.
I think you missed what my point is. I was responding to this:
Quoting xjramper (Reply 28): Just because the technology and capability exists, doesn't mean the public will embrace the concept of an aircraft being piloted by a single pilot no matter how safe you can present it.
I didn't say it was safer, I didn't even say it was as safe (the record speaks for itself). My point was that the public (and the regulators) have *already* embraced the concept an aircraft being piloted by a single crew and carrying revenue passengers.
All the pressures that drove us to that state on small aircraft continue to exist and will only get worse as the industry keeps getting squeezed on revenue, personnel cost, and now potentially a shortage of skilled pilots. It will, as usual, take the OEM's about a decade to catch up and another decade for the regulators to really get their hands around it, but it's coming.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 39, posted (6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9981 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38): All the pressures that drove us to that state on small aircraft continue to exist and will only get worse as the industry keeps getting squeezed on revenue, personnel cost, and now potentially a shortage of skilled pilots. It will, as usual, take the OEM's about a decade to catch up and another decade for the regulators to really get their hands around it, but it's coming.
The "shortage" is primarily within the next 10-15 years. The technology will not be there at the airlines to do anything remotely as to what you assert in that time frame. Airlines are very slow to adapt new technology due to the tremendous cost of acquisition.
xjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2345 posts, RR: 52 Reply 40, posted (6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9999 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35): All those DHC Beavers, Otters, and Twin Otters running around in the world are certified for single pilot ops.
Over 400,000 miles flown in the last two and a half years as a commercial passenger, never once have I stepped aboard any of those aircraft, nor have I stepped on an aircraft that didn't have at least 2 pilots.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 38): I didn't say it was safer, I didn't even say it was as safe (the record speaks for itself). My point was that the public (and the regulators) have *already* embraced the concept an aircraft being piloted by a single crew and carrying revenue passengers.
The traveling public has a mindset that will just not allow for *major* carrier operations to be conducted with just one pilot.
Didn't say you said it was safer, it's just the mentality of the general public. The US just passed a law, which is the premise of the OP, stating that from mid-next year, a candidate for a RJ company will now have to wait until they have surpassed 1500 hours. Do you really think most people are going to allow for a SP operation? The aircraft you described above are designed for SP operation. Any jets make that list that fly commercially?
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 41, posted (6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9903 times:
Quoting xjramper (Reply 40): The traveling public has a mindset that will just not allow for *major* carrier operations to be conducted with just one pilot.
There may be a large % now but in ~15 years with an all-new RJ's design and ~25 years for all-new NB's the majority "mindset" will shift to accepting because robotics and automation will pervade daily lives.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
saab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1605 posts, RR: 12 Reply 42, posted (6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9823 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 14): I don't know if reducing the 1500 to 500 would even be enough to fill the needs at the regional level in the next 3-5 years. I would not be surprised to see someone petition for single pilot operations at the regional level.
Maybe one day, but not anytime soon. The airplanes on the market right now must be flown by two pilots. I have heard that Embraer was doing research in the single-pilot field but it will take a massive shift in logistics to make it happen. No time soon. Airplanes would need enormous amounts of redundancy and automation which does not currently exist. Additionally, a monitoring ground 'pilot' would likely be required and currently there is nothing like it in the airline industry.
Finally, you make the premise that 'regional' flying is easier, thus requiring just one pilot. Nothing could be further from the truth. Short hops have much higher work loads than long-haul flying and pilots frequently do up to 6 or more legs per day.
Single pilot ops makes much more sense on medium length flights with lower work loads.
We won't be seeing single-pilot operations in 'real' airline flying anytime soon. I would say we're at least a decade away from it, if it ever happens.
bahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1727 posts, RR: 12 Reply 43, posted (6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9822 times:
There is no shortage of pilots. There are two things that need to happen :
- There is no company providing flight training financing right now. (ATP Inc. does because they made a deal with Sallie Mae. This company got rid of the flight training financing except for ATP Inc. people only) . Like many things in life, they got too big and they are killing all the good flight schools in the market.
- The wages have to come up. I love it that regionals are still asking for concessions and some of them are in contract negotiations for 6 years (that means no raise close to 10 year period) .. Out of 30 people in my initial hire class , there are only 7-8 of them left in my company. Most of these people are out of airline flying, if not aviation because noone wants to endure 20,000 / year level wages being away from home this long.
It's pathetic that people are getting paid at the level lower than McD's manager when you can do the job without the initial investment of $100K...
To the original poster; get into aviation only because you want to; not because there might be a high demand for it (there isn't)..
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 44, posted (6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9746 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 41): There may be a large % now but in ~15 years with an all-new RJ's design and ~25 years for all-new NB's the majority "mindset" will shift to accepting because robotics and automation will pervade daily lives.
And the military is paying a fortune for UAV's in commercial airspace. That is the enabling technology. IMHO, as small cities are cut off in the current upgauging, there will be enough noise to allow single cockpits, but for smaller planes (50 seats or less).
Automation is becoming standard. I've automated away two of my prior jobs and I see how to automate away 2/3rds of my current position. It will happen.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): Additionally, a monitoring ground 'pilot' would likely be required and currently there is nothing like it in the airline industry.
I suspect once the advantage of a zero G, zero airspeed backup pilot is recognized, there will be a push to make all aircraft have their backup ground based. I went through flight test and the value of a well trained ground crew is immense. The technology is there, it just must get into the civilian sector.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): I have heard that Embraer was doing research in the single-pilot field but it will take a massive shift in logistics to make it happen.
The shift in operational procedure will happen cutesy of the US military and other UAV research. We won't have UAV passenger aircraft (that would be two big of a shift). But going from two to one isn't much of an issue. But it will take decades to happen.
Quoting bahadir (Reply 43): It's pathetic that people are getting paid at the level lower than McD's manager when you can do the job without the initial investment of $100K...
But that means supply and demand must come into balance and that is not the case.
BostonMike From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9704 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): But that means supply and demand must come into balance and that is not the case.
Several things are in flux now. The regional airline model is rapidly changing. In bankruptcy proceedings, Pinnacle is demanding their pilots accept a wage/benefit level below anyone else in the industry. You can bet Delta's heavy hand is behind this ensuring their ability to negotiate lower CPAs with other regionals. So there is a race to the bottom for pilot compensation and benefits. Meanwhile the cost of training remains high. The major airlines are embracing a scope provision to dramatically increase regional partner flying up to 76 seats.
Republic pilots have had an amenable contract since 2007. Presently, their first officers are capped at around $34,000 a year no matter how many years they have been employed or what type of equipment they operate. Based on the Pinnacle progress, why would Republic be in any hurry to negotiate.
One of the manning solutions which comes up from time to time is the use of a Multi-Licensed Pilot (MLP) to staff airlines. Boy or girl wonder can operate the aircraft while in flight, but makes no take offs or landings and is qualified to "cruise" on all the aircraft in the fleet.
I think the use of the term, Single Pilot, is somewhat archaic. We are not talking about single-piloted corporate jets or Cape Air type flying. We are talking about robotic assisted flying. Sounds more like a very advanced autopilot to me. Robotic Laparoscopic Surgery is becoming routine and even sought out.
As far as public perception goes, well, good marketing can do amazing things.
I remember the royal battle over placing the DC-9 into service with only two pilots. "Unsafe", "suicidal" were the calls from the pilot groups. "We need those extra eyes in the cockpit". United even had a Guy in Back (GIB) on the 737s. His only job was to fill out the time sheet for the other two pilots and do the walkarounds.
Moore's Law is still around. Just check out the computing power of the new smart phones. "I'm Siri and I can handle all of your flying needs".
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 46, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9544 times:
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 45): So there is a race to the bottom for pilot compensation and benefits.
Which will be balanced by supply and demand. Not many pilots are going through training as the pay is poor. If pay improves, which it should be able to with 76+ seaters, I would expect more to enter the industry. In particular after the majors *finally* start having their retirements in number. But it will take the hope of more pay to fix that part of the system.
Note: I'm not talking about dramatic increases in pay, but enough to attract new entrants.
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 45): The major airlines are embracing a scope provision to dramatically increase regional partner flying up to 76 seats.
Yes. To be expected. The MRJ900 is being engineered to cost about the same as a CRJ200 per flight. Even if the MRJ misses the target by a little, it is a much better economic situation. The 50 seat RJs just burn too much fuel per passenger. This will mean a few cities are either dropped or returned to turboprop duty, but so what?
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 45): I think the use of the term, Single Pilot, is somewhat archaic.
Agreed. I'm not sure 'robotic assisted' flying is the right term as there would be a ground pilot to assist in case of the worst. While the electronics could fly and land the aircraft (takeoff is trivial), customers will initially want a human always in the loop.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 47, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9491 times:
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): Finally, you make the premise that 'regional' flying is easier, thus requiring just one pilot. Nothing could be further from the truth. Short hops have much higher work loads than long-haul flying and pilots frequently do up to 6 or more legs per day.
The regionals are the LAST places that should see single-pilot ops.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 48, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9490 times:
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): I have heard that Embraer was doing research in the single-pilot field
Yes, a couple of years back Embraer was looking at the possibility of SP ops by as early as 2020 and was planning to provide SP capability in the 2020-25 timeframe. Others that publicly have acknowledged work on SP ops are GE Aviation (with the FAA) that are working on a possible "reduced-crew options" for cargo airlines by 2020. And Thales presented their SP ops flight deck at the last Paris Airshow.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): Airplanes would need enormous amounts of redundancy and automation which does not currently exist.
No "enormous amounts" required... and the automation already exists.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): Additionally, a monitoring ground 'pilot' would likely be required and currently there is nothing like it in the airline industry.
Nothing like it? What do you call the +1,300 people that work on the 27th floor of the Willis Tower that manage UA's 5,600 daily flights? And every major has one.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): Short hops have much higher work loads than long-haul flying and pilots frequently do up to 6 or more legs per day.
I fully agree. I have posted before that pilot pay should take into account legs flown. It is perverse that the most experienced pilots get the easiest routes and are paid (typically) the most... the opposite of just about every other endeavor where the best takes on the most challenging and thus earns top dollar.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): Single pilot ops makes much more sense on medium length flights with lower work loads.
Work load will be significantly less with next gen of RJ/NB's and ATC.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): I would say we're at least a decade away from it, if it ever happens.
Perhaps less than a decade on cargo flights. Can't understand why you would even entertain that it might not even happen given how much automation is already on the drawing boards and the exponential growth in computing power going forward?
Quoting bahadir (Reply 43): It's pathetic that people are getting paid at the level lower than McD's manager when you can do the job without the initial investment of $100K...
Supply and demand.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): And the military is paying a fortune for UAV's in commercial airspace. That is the enabling technology.
Yes, the military is funding the lion share of not just UAV's but all autonomous systems which leverage off each other. As well, the commercial side is growing robustly and are applying significant pressure on politicians to allow commercial UAV ops.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): Automation is becoming standard. I've automated away two of my prior jobs and I see how to automate away 2/3rds of my current position. It will happen.
Several articles in the press echo your point!
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 45): As far as public perception goes, well, good marketing can do amazing things.
Including lower fares. Just look at how much people belly ache about FR... to the point of making it the largest short haul carrier in Europe with the highest market cap!
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 45): Moore's Law is still around. Just check out the computing power of the new smart phones. "I'm Siri and I can handle all of your flying needs".
It seems that most people don't know about Moore's Law... or the fact that even now just about every pax has a back-up PFD!
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 46): Yes. To be expected. The MRJ900 is being engineered to cost about the same as a CRJ200 per flight. Even if the MRJ misses the target by a little, it is a much better economic situation. The 50 seat RJs just burn too much fuel per passenger. This will mean a few cities are either dropped or returned to turboprop duty, but so what?
And the MRJ isn't really an optimized platform.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 51, posted (6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9363 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 17): I would be shocked if anyone wants to petition single pilot operations, ever, at least for 50+ seat aircraft.
Someone will, I have no doubts. The only question is "who will it be?"
They can petition all they want. The current flock of regional aircraft all require two pilots per the type certificates. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 52, posted (6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9216 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 48): Work load will be significantly less with next gen of RJ/NB's and ATC.
All aircraft. I'm very excited where the next generation of ATC is going.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 48): As well, the commercial side is growing robustly and are applying significant pressure on politicians to allow commercial UAV ops.
But it will be the military paying for the initial certifications. We can agree to the same end game.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 48): And the MRJ isn't really an optimized platform.
I'm amazed how many parts are "borrowed" (not optimized). Its still an exciting platform. When an engine has a compressor stage ripped off, that ensures everything runs cool and thus incredible cycle life at the expense of fuel burn. Not the ideal cost per flight basis, but it will work.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 53, posted (6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8979 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 47): The regionals are the LAST places that should see single-pilot ops.
True. I suspect the first "chink in the armour" for passenger service will be the second crew on long-haul. The relatively low workload oceanic cruise segment is ripe for possibility for reduced crewing.
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 51): They can petition all they want. The current flock of regional aircraft all require two pilots per the type certificates. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
It's not going to happen on any current type. You can't take a type designed for two-crew operation and reduce it to one. It has to be designed in from the start. It all depends on how big the shortage (if it even happens) is and how much the airlines are willing to pay to offset it vs. how much they'd have to pay to do it through aircraft change.
My guess is that, for a long time, it will be cheaper to pay more and get more pilots into the system than to alter procedures or get new aircraft. My dream situation would be for the US airlines to switch over to cadet or ab initio training but I'm not going to hold my breath on that.
BostonMike From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8943 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53): My dream situation would be for the US airlines to switch over to cadet or ab initio training but I'm not going to hold my breath on that.
There has always been a reluctance for U.S. airlines to go this route. It has always made sense. But now we "may" be facing the 1500 hour minimum rule and one question is how do you build that additional required time.
Cape Air instituted a Gateway Program a couple of years ago, under the guidance of Dave Bushy, the CEO. Cape Air is a rather unique airline and I don't know if the program could be replicated. Here is a bit about it from their website:
"The Cape Air JetBlue University Gateway Program continues to grow each year as we accept new students from our partnering universities the University of North Dakota and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. This program is a unique career pathway giving students the opportunity to obtain the skills and experience necessary to eventually become a pilot for JetBlue.
There are a number of steps that a student must complete in order to be eligible for a final interview at JetBlue. These steps include:
an interview with Cape air and JetBlue as a sophomore or junior at our partner Universities
an internship with Cape Air
graduate from an AABI accredited program
flight Instruction at the University
flying as a Captain at Cape Air for approximately 2-3 years."
As far as a future pilot shortage goes, there are lots of former regional jet pilots who have left the flying profession for greener pastures. Given the prospect of a decent paycheck and career potential, I think many of them would return to their first love.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 56, posted (6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8743 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 41): There may be a large % now but in ~15 years with an all-new RJ's design and ~25 years for all-new NB's the majority "mindset" will shift to accepting because robotics and automation will pervade daily lives.
I don't think you are because of the regulatory, public perception, and insurance hurdles associated with SP ops. I also believe there are technological issues as well. Engineers always think they are far more clever then they really are, e.g. Titanic.
Even if everything you say is true and we have an all new single pilot RJ in 15 years, it will be too late.
This shortage is happening now! Regionals are struggling at this very moment to fill their classes. We haven't even begun the retirements yet. I don't think you realize how bad it is out there for regional airline recruiters.
It only gets worse because the industry will be retiring hundreds and hundreds of pilots a year. The only reason regionals are keeping pace right now is because they are shrinking.
Basically wages have to come up otherwise regionals will be incredibly hard pressed to find anyone. The regional industry will collapse on itself in a few years time if some major changes aren't made to compensation.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 57, posted (6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8683 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 56): Engineers always think they are far more clever then they really are, e.g. Titanic.
Just as in aviation, any sufficiently determined captain can crash his vessel regardless of what the engineers do.
Quoting norcal (Reply 56): This shortage is happening now! Regionals are struggling at this very moment to fill their classes. We haven't even begun the retirements yet. I don't think you realize how bad it is out there for regional airline recruiters.
How come there are still so many furloughed pilots? Or are the regionals hurting because they haven't increased the compensation package yet?
The titanic was claimed to be "unsinkable," reminds me of arrogance often displayed by engineers with other projects.
There are furloughed mainline pilots but they aren't willing to work for $20,000 a year. Regionals will not be able to staff at those pathetic wages. The pay needs to increase (supply and demand) or regionals will not be able to staff their flying.
saab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1605 posts, RR: 12 Reply 59, posted (6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8562 times:
One reason there are a fair number of furloughed pilots is that many refuse to go to the right seat of an RJ for peanut wages. My guess is that many Comair folks will leave the industry rather than see another RJ. And many major furloughees are currently employed at companies like SWA or JetBlue. They retain recall rights at their respective airlines but many will bypass. The numbers shown on websites like APC don't really tell the whole story. It is rare to have more than 50% take recalls. It is sometimes as low as 20% with long furloughs at some carriers.
Re: workload on RJs. It is currently higher on an RJ on the same routes as a Boeing or Airbus. 1 FMS, no vertical nav capabilities and no auto throttle. Those are are a couple of the major differences. Some arrivals we do into DCA are crazy in the number of waypoints and altitude restrictions and changing rates of descent. Definitely high workload situations. I'm sure these challenges are being addressed by the aircraft manufacturers.
Antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1505 posts, RR: 4 Reply 60, posted (6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8540 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 58): The titanic was claimed to be "unsinkable," reminds me of arrogance often displayed by engineers with other projects.
The connotation that the Titanic was believed "unsinkable" actually came about later. She WAS considered an engineering marvel and the safest ship afloat, but none of her designers ever called her unsinkable.
For all their knowledge of mathematics and the natural laws of the universe, Engineers are as superstitious as the rest of us... saying something can't happen is tantamount to daring it to happen. That applies just as much to aviation engineers as to nautical ones.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 61, posted (6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8475 times:
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 60): For all their knowledge of mathematics and the natural laws of the universe, Engineers are as superstitious as the rest of us... saying something can't happen is tantamount to daring it to happen. That applies just as much to aviation engineers as to nautical ones.
I guess I must know different engineers than you do.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 59): The numbers shown on websites like APC don't really tell the whole story. It is rare to have more than 50% take recalls. It is sometimes as low as 20% with long furloughs at some carriers.
Exactly, there are many pilots that have moved on to other places or left the industry entirely. You don't get furloughed from American and then go work at a regional. You can't financially justify it, especially when you could make more at Home Depot and be home every night.
One number that is accurate on APC is the mandatory age 65 retirements. In 2013, 718 mainline pilots are scheduled to retire from American, United, US Airways, and Delta. That is the beginning of the trend and it's bell shaped. In 2017 it's 1,241 pilots and in 2020 its 1,806 from those same carriers. That's not counting anyone else like Southwest, which is a very large carrier.
That assumes no growth at mainline (unlikely given the international push) and none of the effects of the new FTDT rules.
To put it in perspective, in 2013 mainline carriers will need the equivalent of an Air Wisconsin to staff their current flying. In 2020 the number is equivalent to a carrier the size of RAH. With that kind of movement on a yearly basis how on earth will regional airlines be able to staff themselves? They can barely do it now and there is essentially zero movement at the majors.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 62, posted (6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8447 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 58): There are furloughed mainline pilots but they aren't willing to work for $20,000 a year. Regionals will not be able to staff at those pathetic wages. The pay needs to increase (supply and demand) or regionals will not be able to staff their flying.
Quoting norcal (Reply 61): In 2013, 718 mainline pilots are scheduled to retire from American, United, US Airways, and Delta. That is the beginning of the trend and it's bell shaped. In 2017 it's 1,241 pilots and in 2020 its 1,806 from those same carriers.
The combination of these two statements means that, if true, the "shortage" is entirely of the regionals' own making and entirely within their power to correct...they just need to pay enough to bring the furloughed pilots back into aviation. That means an economic shock to the regional industry but it means they won't run out of pilots unless they want to.
Based on projected future pilot requirements, the Regional Airline Association (RAA) clearly has to get its act together. Right now RAA airlines have little or no negotiating power with the major airlines. It's all about who has the lowest cost associated with a CPA proposal. Given their very slim, if any, profit margins, I don't see how regionals can raise the floor of pilot wages and benefits independently.
Maybe the regional partnership as a business model is out of date. When the entire goal of senior management is to lower costs instead of providing a better product can failure be far behind. I know I am old, but I fondly remember the Piedmonts, PSAs, North Centrals and Republics of old. They created a brand and had their followers. Nostalgia, however, doesn't pay the bills either.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 64, posted (6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8443 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 62): The combination of these two statements means that, if true, the "shortage" is entirely of the regionals' own making and entirely within their power to correct...they just need to pay enough to bring the furloughed pilots back into aviation. That means an economic shock to the regional industry but it means they won't run out of pilots unless they want to.
I've been saying that all along.
They can't keep paying crap wages and expect people to show up. The regionals won't be able to continue as they are right now.
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 63): It's all about who has the lowest cost associated with a CPA proposal. Given their very slim, if any, profit margins, I don't see how regionals can raise the floor of pilot wages and benefits independently.
It really wouldn't add that much to the cost of a ticket to pay a decent starting salary for regional FOs. To double an FOs starting salary would cost a grand total of 46 cents per passenger per flight hour on a 50 seat regional jet. (That's assuming current starting salary of about $23 an hour).
You start shifting to larger "regional" jets and it becomes even more affordable.
DeltaRules From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 11 Reply 65, posted (6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8336 times:
I have a friend at a regional who suffered an injury requiring surgery, which took him off line flying for a period. He was placed in training while he recovered and made a Facebook post talking about how he didn't get to fly, but DID get to be home every night AND had a slight pay raise.
Also, I did a research paper on single-pilot operations a couple of years ago. Ryanair had already talked to Boeing about rolling out a single-pilot 737-800, to which Boeing quickly replied "No.".
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6): Personally, I think the 1,500 hour rule will be changed before it becomes implemented because it was more so pushed by bureaucrats who don't know jack about the industry than it was the actual FAA.
I wish this were true, because there's so much backward about the rule, but I get the feeling that there's a big variable here that may let the politicians get away with the bill smelling like a rose:
Didn't Sully publicly endorse the bill? Will John Q. Public or a politician who "doesn't know jack about aviation" make the effort to change things after he, with his infinite wisdom, goes on CBS and tells people that this will make them safer?
Quoting as739x (Reply 13): No . the Government will stick it's foot in it's mouth realizing it made a huge mistake in raising min's to 1500. It was a reactionary move, mainly after the Colgan crash, to please the public. What the public forgets is that flying is safer than it's ever been.
It's a massive kneejerk reaction, especially when you take into account that both pilots in the Colgan crash had north of 2500TT (as did the crew of Comair 5191 who, if I remember right, both had over 5000). That's the most insulting part. I don't disagree with trying to make flying safer, but the wrong people (pilots with 1499TT or less) are taking the blame for something they didn't do.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 66, posted (6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8175 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 52): But it will be the military paying for the initial certifications. We can agree to the same end game.
As I mentioned, the military is paying the lion share now but commercial ops are chomping at the bit to start flying and 2015 can't come soon enough for them. And in addition to global "industry" R&D mainly for military, there is just a ton of research at the university level.
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 59): Re: workload on RJs. It is currently higher on an RJ on the same routes as a Boeing or Airbus. 1 FMS, no vertical nav capabilities and no auto throttle. Those are are a couple of the major differences. Some arrivals we do into DCA are crazy in the number of waypoints and altitude restrictions and changing rates of descent. Definitely high workload situations. I'm sure these challenges are being addressed by the aircraft manufacturers.
It is being addressed. As has been mentioned, other than the potential for SP ops on cargo flights around 2020, we wouldn't see SP until the next all-new RJ.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8120 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 58):
The titanic was claimed to be "unsinkable," reminds me of arrogance often displayed by engineers with other projects.
I agree with the general statements made by the designers as implying that the Titanic would not sink in any normal mishap - assuming that all standard safety devices were being used.
In fact - the Titanic did not sink because it hit an Iceberg which was a common occurrence at the time and the Titanic had been designed not to sink in such a collision.
The Titanic sank because the crew disabled the key safety system to prevent the ship from sinking in the event of a collision - which was that certain large internal doors were to be closed (which would prevent flood water from moving down the ship).
The Titanic (and her sister ships) had a large lower crew passageway that ran fore and aft to allow the crew to easily move from their sleeping, eating, and work stations - out of sight of the passengers. That crew passageway had 3 or 4 large doors that were to be closed in poor weather or other hazardous conditions. But that required the crew to climb up several levels to go around the doors and then descend again. So the crew intentionally left the large doors open - even though they should have been closed when the ship hit the iceberg. Flood waters were thus not contained to one small section of the ship - and the ship progressively flooded until it sank.
No matter how good the safety systems - they cannot save you if you turn them off. It was true of the Titanic, and it is true today as well.
The resulting design change in the shipping industry at the time was to eliminate the lower crew passageway (which had been used by other ships as well); thus eliminating any large doors that could be left open. Double lower hulls came a lot latter.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 68, posted (6 months 16 hours ago) and read 7933 times:
Wow, people.
I have never in my life seen so many times the phrase "Single Pilot Operation". Neither did I expect the subject of the Titanic to drop in a thread which is originally a simple question by a flight student about the situation on the market these days and in the foreseeable future.
Might I suggest we stick on topic? And might I also suggest that the next couple of folks answering are not our beloved friends from the US, but someone from a place we have not heard a lot about in this thread, par example, Europe. After all, that's where the OP comes from and this is the area he will be able to apply in given he's not likely to have an FAA licence by the end of his training, if completed on the old continent.
Selfishly enough it's also a topic I too naturally have a certain interest in.
Thank you, and apologies if I have rudely interrupted the chittychat.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 70, posted (6 months 12 hours ago) and read 7780 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 68): And might I also suggest that the next couple of folks answering are not our beloved friends from the US, but someone from a place we have not heard a lot about in this thread, par example, Europe.
But we will develop the technology.
It is somewhat about local job market, but the reality is that pilot slots are now a global market excluding domestic US/Europe. It is also true that US rules (as well as European) are copied by the bulk of the world market. So if the USA amends the 1,500 hour rule, then it will impact Europeans who wish to fly for EK for it shall impact the supply/demand curve of the US pilots to mid-east airlines.
Quoting prizeframe (Reply 69): and also feel that the train went of the tracks a little bit.
But those side diversions are future impacts upon the pilot job market. Money is being spent. Perhaps not in Europe, but extensively within the United States.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 72, posted (6 months 7 hours ago) and read 7679 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): It is somewhat about local job market, but the reality is that pilot slots are now a global market excluding domestic US/Europe.
The industry is still in flux... just look at how so many on here laughed at Emirates for their pretentious ambitions a few years ago... not to mention the state of denial of many that LCC's would be so successful - particularly Ryanair.. And even further back, there was "outrage" when AW&ST ran a cover story: And then there were six. First, it was derided and then everyone started arguing that it would absolutely be "their" airline that would be one of the "hypothetical" six majors left standing. One can speculate what the next 10 years will bring.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 73, posted (6 months 6 hours ago) and read 7627 times:
Quoting SQ325 (Reply 71): I sometimes struggle to get myself home in one piece after one of these "low workload oceanic cruise segments"
True, but that's mostly because it's a freakin' long day...why have two people exhausted when you could have just one? Put another way...are you dog tired because you were working so hard over that segment, or because you were up for so long at weird hours?
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 74, posted (6 months 5 hours ago) and read 7606 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 73): Put another way...are you dog tired because you were working so hard over that segment, or because you were up for so long at weird hours?
Or are you dog tired because you weren't working that hard over that segment? Staring at screens waiting for something to go wrong can get pretty tiring when you're doing it for a long time. Bright sunlight doesn't help.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 75, posted (6 months 2 hours ago) and read 7562 times:
I mentioned earlier in response to BostonMike's comment about Moore's Law how now every pax potentially has a back-up PFD... WingX now has the Pro7 on the iPad mini
... and WingX on a "HUD" iPhone...
[Edited 2012-11-26 22:30:52]
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 76, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7499 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): It is somewhat about local job market, but the reality is that pilot slots are now a global market excluding domestic US/Europe. It is also true that US rules (as well as European) are copied by the bulk of the world market. So if the USA amends the 1,500 hour rule, then it will impact Europeans who wish to fly for EK for it shall impact the supply/demand curve of the US pilots to mid-east airlines.
I know what you mean and I also think that there is a global impact whatever region of the world comes up with whatever legislation on the matter. However, the truth is that a US pilot cannot simply walk into Europe and fly with a European carrier, vice versa. It's just the way the licences are handled.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is a whole different topic which I feel does not belong in this thread.
A little insight from somebody in a position with a European carrier that knows how the ball is playing these days would be very appreciated. Who's searching for pilots? Are they searching at all? Where's the big demand? LCCs, Legacies, Corporate, Cargo?
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
silentbob From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1646 posts, RR: 1 Reply 77, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7362 times:
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 42): Finally, you make the premise that 'regional' flying is easier, thus requiring just one pilot. Nothing could be further from the truth. Short hops have much higher work loads than long-haul flying and pilots frequently do up to 6 or more legs per day.
I don't believe that regional flying is easier. Having done it for years, I know better. I simply believe that it will happen first at a regional airline.
Quoting Mir (Reply 47): The regionals are the LAST places that should see single-pilot ops.
I don't disagree at all, but I still think it will happen. Not today or tomorrow, but it will be considered in the next 5-7 years.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 78, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7354 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 76): However, the truth is that a US pilot cannot simply walk into Europe and fly with a European carrier, vice versa. It's just the way the licences are handled.
Agreed. But I know us pilots in Dubai, Tokyo, and a few other locations. I met (barely know) a few European pilots in the mid-east and India. If the International pilot market improves, it will suck pilots from the US and Europe. If the US market improves, but not Europe, it would suck pilots from the international market putting European pilots in competition for international jobs. There will not be flow from US to Europe or vice versa, but the international market impacts the flows from US to international and Europe to international.
Quoting silentbob (Reply 77): Quoting Mir (Reply 47):
The regionals are the LAST places that should see single-pilot ops.
I don't disagree at all, but I still think it will happen. Not today or tomorrow, but it will be considered in the next 5-7 years.
I think we are in agreement. But it will be a regional, partially due to Embraer, that sees it first. The next 50 seat RJ will only be economical with significant cost reductions. I personally think Embraer will develop the technology to cut business jet insurance costs. Not for in flight costs of the pilot, but the insurance. But it will take a larger market with large customers, so it will be in RJs.
GRAND FORKS — Approaching his last semester of classes at University of North Dakota, aviation student Randy Lewis hopes to join a regional airline but isn’t sure his friends will follow.
...
Major airlines will need to hire 38,178 pilots through 2030 to cover retirements and other departures for all commercial operations, according to the UND study. That’s lower than the 60,000 that an earlier study projected would be needed by 2025; the industry growth forecasted by the FAA is lower.
...
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 80, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7248 times:
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 54): But now we "may" be facing the 1500 hour minimum rule and one question is how do you build that additional required time.
flight instructing
135 charter operations
air taxi
banner towing
ad-hoc whatever
hitching rides
begging
bribing
No offense, but you build it the way(s) everybody USED TO build it. The idea that you could be hired by an airline with LESS THAN 1,500 hours is pretty new, actually.
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
They might want to go to UND. From the article I linked to...
Quote: The FAA said that airline co-pilots would only need 1,000 hours of flight experience if they graduate from a four-year accredited institution and are trained to fly by a school affiliated with that institution. UND student pilots would meet both requirements.
...
Military pilots can get by with 750 hours.
Also, UND Aerospace administrators say the new requirements may not be too much of a stretch for their students.
Full-time flight instructors here accumulate as many as 50 hours a week, while part-time instructors, often hired by the university while they’re still students, can accumulate about 10 to 15 hours a week flying. A typical aviation student graduates with a minimum of 250 hours of flying time.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Quoting aviateur (Reply 80):
flight instructing
135 charter operations
air taxi
banner towing
ad-hoc whatever
hitching rides
begging
bribing
No offense, but you build it the way(s) everybody USED TO build it. The idea that you could be hired by an airline with LESS THAN 1,500 hours is pretty new, actually.
THANK YOU!!!
However, the return on investment is lower now.... Considering inflation, major airline pilots make a fraction of what they used to even in 1990. However, the cost for learning to fly has kept up with inflation.
The "flying is a right" movement from the US government has pushed aviation to split at the seams with razor thin margins. It, like many other poorly estimated judgments, is about to bite!
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 83, posted (5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7136 times:
Quoting aviateur (Reply 80):
No offense, but you build it the way(s) everybody USED TO build it. The idea that you could be hired by an airline with LESS THAN 1,500 hours is pretty new, actually.
"Welcome to the US" is the only thing I can comment on that.
The matter of the fact is that I could start with 200 hours as a Ready Entry with a lot of airlines here, 4U and AB come to mind immediately. And they are not bottem-end operations!
That is why I'd love to get some European opinion on this thread. More than 90% of this conversation is filled by the US, which is perfectly alright, but some European insight would be sooo dearly appreciated.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7129 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 83): The matter of the fact is that I could start with 200 hours as a Ready Entry with a lot of airlines here, 4U and AB come to mind immediately.
Which is exactly why I don't fly most non-US carriers...I don't care what the inflight meals look like.
saab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1605 posts, RR: 12 Reply 85, posted (5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7087 times:
Quoting aviateur (Reply 80): flight instructing
135 charter operations
air taxi
banner towing
ad-hoc whatever
hitching rides
begging
bribing
No offense, but you build it the way(s) everybody USED TO build it. The idea that you could be hired by an airline with LESS THAN 1,500 hours is pretty new, actually.
There are simply not enough jobs like this out there to allow thousands of pilots to build the 1500 hours needed for an ATP when the retirement numbers reach nearly 1000 per year starting soon. Like 2013. Building time flying checks or doing whatever is not a realistic expectation given the number of retirements fast approaching.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 86, posted (5 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7072 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 84): Which is exactly why I don't fly most non-US carriers...I don't care what the inflight meals look like.
Which is a simply naive point of view.
Think about that it takes an AB first officer around 8-12 years to become captain. And guess what: every flight deck still has a captain.
Besides, I rather fly with a 25 year old FO which has been growing up in the "Nintendo-Generation" piloting an A320 together with a 45 year old pro, than two 50 year old senior pilots which can't make up their mind about that computerized piece of junk they have to fly around all day, moaning about the good old days when we still had proper DC-8s ...
Quoting saab2000 (Reply 85):
There are simply not enough jobs like this out there to allow thousands of pilots to build the 1500 hours needed for an ATP when the retirement numbers reach nearly 1000 per year starting soon. Like 2013. Building time flying checks or doing whatever is not a realistic expectation given the number of retirements fast approaching.
Is that so? I have looked at the links which the authorities and the OEMs provide concerning ageing and retiring pilots, but are there also sources quoting airlines on the matter?
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
None of that stuff is certified for 121. It's been several years since the iPad came out and most carriers still don't have it approved to replace paper mannuals and jepp charts. That's really not that big of a deal yet it's taking forever to get done.
Everything takes much longer in 121 aviation because of how slow the FAA moves. That along with public perception is going to delay single pilot ops far beyond when you think it will happen.
You can keep quoting the military and general aviation developments as much as you want but fact is the 121 will be behind the curve.
Wow a flight school advertising how easy it is to be a pilot.....shocking!
My question for school administrators would be how many people do you actually have as full time instructors vs. part time. I bet most students will be stuck as part time students inching their way towards the time required
50 hours of flight time a week is an insane amount of flying for anyone to do. There are many hours of ground instruction that has to be fit into those schedules as well leaving very little time to have a life, let alone rest. The industry is running out of people that are willing to make sacrifices like that in order to get a bad paying regional job. It was worth it when the major airline job was absolutely fantastic, but that's been diminished greatly. If you're going to accumulate 100K worth of debt at least do something that pays well.
Also no carve out has actually been set up yet, so saying it is only 1,000 hours is a blatant lie. It's still in the NPRM stage at this point, it might never happen.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 88, posted (5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6901 times:
Wow, all it takes is for planemaker to drop in yet another post about 'single-pilot' operations and we're off to the races!
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53): True. I suspect the first "chink in the armour" for passenger service will be the second crew on long-haul. The relatively low workload oceanic cruise segment is ripe for possibility for reduced crewing.
Are you freakin' kidding?? Sure, it's relatively 'low workload' during cruise, but after being in the plane for 10+ hours, breathing dry high-altitude air and fatigued from the time and tedium of cruise, I sure as heck want several more crewmembers all in the cockpit making sure we're doing the right thing while making that approach in stormy weather to an airport where none of the other pilots or controllers speak English as their first language!
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 73): True, but that's mostly because it's a freakin' long day...why have two people exhausted when you could have just one? Put another way...are you dog tired because you were working so hard over that segment, or because you were up for so long at weird hours?
So by your reasoning a typical day for a regional (multiple legs, busy airports, and primitive equipment) should have 4 pilots in the cockpit, while a 12+ hour long-haul should have one pilot and several cans of Red Bull? It's a long day for the long-haul pilot BECAUSE it's a long-haul! He's already been up several hours before the flight even left, and what makes it doable is the fact that there are extra pilots onboard that allow the pilot to take rest breaks, and in some cases even get some sleep. If there were ever long-haul flights with a single pilot, I know I'd never ride on them.
Quoting aviateur (Reply 80): No offense, but you build it the way(s) everybody USED TO build it. The idea that you could be hired by an airline with LESS THAN 1,500 hours is pretty new, actually.
No, that idea has been around for about as long as there have been airlines. It's just a matter of supply & demand that drives the actual averages. My dad was hired by United in 1937 with about 300 hours. After WWII, most airlines wouldn't hire anyone because of a glut of military-trained pilots flooding the market. You couldn't get a job no matter how many hours you had. By the early 1960's, UAL was back to advertising for anyone with a commercial licence & some multi time. It's swung many times back and forth, but only now has the supply & demand equation been hijacked by a government rule (1500 hours) that is really a PR front rather than an intelligent piece of legislation.
Quoting prizeframe (Reply 69): I have to agree with Semaex, and also feel that the train went of the tracks a little bit.
Yes, it did. There are a few people (okay, maybe more than a few) who still believe that there isn't a pilot shortage. The answer is that at this very moment, no there isn't. I am looking at five to ten years down the road when the lack of current students will show up in the inability of American regionals to find anyone, with any experience, to fill their cockpits. All that any of these people have to do is to look at the state of flight schools across the country and they'll understand what we're up against.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 89, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6822 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 88): Yes, it did. There are a few people (okay, maybe more than a few) who still believe that there isn't a pilot shortage. The answer is that at this very moment, no there isn't. I am looking at five to ten years down the road when the lack of current students will show up in the inability of American regionals to find anyone, with any experience, to fill their cockpits. All that any of these people have to do is to look at the state of flight schools across the country and they'll understand what we're up against.
For regionals that shortage is already here. American Eagle and Republic are both offering $5,000 signing bonuses to attract people but they aren't filling their classes as needed. Talk to the regional recruiters and ask them about the hiring pool, it's very shallow. The interest level is way down and those that are interested are either unqualified or unhireable (multiple DUIs, speeding tickets, etc.).
The fact that American Eagle is planning on hiring 400 people next year despite parking all the ATRs and a bunch of ERJs should tell you something about the level of attrition they are experieincing. Shrinking airlines don't hire pilots, especially in that number.
As far as your ATP law comment goes....
Clearly you've never flown with some of these zero to hero pilots. The vast majority require a ton of babysitting (there are a couple exceptions, but not many). It's basically like being a flight instructor again, I'm really glad I'm no longer a part of the regional world because it's was almost like single pilot ops with most of these low time guys
BostonMike From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6784 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 89): For regionals that shortage is already here. American Eagle and Republic are both offering $5,000 signing bonuses to attract people but they aren't filling their classes as needed.
We may have gotten off the track a bit. Which forum doesn't? And, admittedly, the posters from the US don't know much about European pilot training and hiring so apologies to the OP for that. Perhaps a new topic about the European issues might be appropriate. But the future of airline piloting is the germaine subject. So I say, "Party On".
Republic Airways Holdings is facing half-full new hire classes. And those who complete and are assigned to the Chautauqua side of the family are looking for an early exit because SkyWest pays their EMB145 pilots more. We may, indeed, be at the pay/benefit bottom for airline pilots, but before the August implementation date for the new pilot time requirements, lots of lobbyists in thousand dollar suits will be banging on congress's doors to change the law.
Is airline flying safer because 250 hour wonders in the cockpit are adequate or is it because of a huge leap in technologies? I agree that the new law is trying to address the public's perception and doesn't address the real issues. But addressing the real issues means REAL training and real assessments and not those based on which FBO, Academy or Military you train at or how cosy the relationship is between the airlines and the FAA's POIs. And it's going to take a lot of new money in the FAA's budget. Anyone think that will happen?
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 91, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6746 times:
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 90): Is airline flying safer because 250 hour wonders in the cockpit are adequate or is it because of a huge leap in technologies?
It's not the technology that makes up for the experience gap, sure it helps a little, but it is the seasoned captains that are holding the hands of these 250 hour wonders and keeping them from doing really stupid things. These vast majority of these 250 hour wonders aren't coming in with the foundation required to operate in the 121 world. It's entirely possible that some of them have never experienced icing, never flown in areas with severe thunderstorms, or even logged any actual instrument time.
People like to point out that the Colgan pilots weren't low time. That's true, however they came into the airline with relatively low time and never learned things like basic airmanship. They were rushed through their training programs with multiple failures and allowed to take positions they weren't qualified for. That's what it took for regional airlines to fill these seats at the pathetic wages they pay.
It has resulted in on the job learning for many of the wonder kid FOs now at regionals, instead of coming in with the skills already learned.
95% of the job is fairly easy, it's the 5% of the job where stuff is going wrong or you have bad weather that we are paid to handle. It's the times that you have to draw on your experience and skills and as aviator to save the plane and the passengers that are important. Many of the decision making and rapid situation analysis skills are learned while doing the bad time building jobs like night freight and to a lesser extent being a CFI. You don't want that first scary situation to occur with a plane load of people.
1500 hours may or may not be the right answer, but I can assure that 250 hours isn't either.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 92, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6741 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 88): If there were ever long-haul flights with a single pilot, I know I'd never ride on them.
I wouldn't either. But would you fly on them if they had two pilots in the cockpit during takeoff and landing and one in cruise (with the other resting)? Because that's the issue I believe Tdscanuck is talking about.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DeltaRules From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 11 Reply 93, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6642 times:
I have a friend from a recently departed regional who saw the writing on the wall and put his resume in elsewhere. He'd been offered a spot with Republic, but turned it down because he found a better offer for a private company.
Similarly, I have a friend who was furloughed from CRJ flying in the US, went to Nigeria to fly CR9s before that company went under, then went to Uruguay before getting his recall in the US. Given the choice of "living and working in the USA for peanuts but with benefits, or living in South America, but for 150% the pay", he nearly opted to return to Uruguay.
Quoting norcal (Reply 89): Clearly you've never flown with some of these zero to hero pilots. The vast majority require a ton of babysitting (there are a couple exceptions, but not many). It's basically like being a flight instructor again, I'm really glad I'm no longer a part of the regional world because it's was almost like single pilot ops with most of these low time guys
Serious question- How much time does it take for a fresh hire F/O to transition from "zero to hero" to "quality guy in the right seat"? For someone who chooses to build their time by being a CFI/CFII/MEI, does an additional 1250 (or, when comparing hiring at 500-700 hours, which would require an extra 800-1000 to get to 1500) hours of stalls, steep turns, day VFR cross-countries, and touch-and-gos make a new hire less apt to require babysitting? I'd imagine there'd be some learning curve transitioning from a 172 to CRJ/ERJ/Q400 regardless of how much time one had.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 94, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6651 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 92): But would you fly on them if they had two pilots in the cockpit during takeoff and landing and one in cruise (with the other resting)? Because that's the issue I believe Tdscanuck is talking about.
No, I wouldn't. I fly long-haul, and despite Tdscanuck's preference, there are always times that two heads are better than one, even in mid-cruise. Whether it's stormy weather, mechanical problems, or even a medical situation in the back, you have to have one person on the flight deck whose sole job is to fly the plane, while the other can deal with the issue at hand. Safety is always first in mind while doing the job, and time & again, it's been shown that having two pilots in the cockpit is safer than one. I don't want the other pilot asleep in the bunk, somewhere about 100 feet behind me and buried below the passenger cabin in the crew rest pod while I'm trying to deal with any sort of problem. And finally, (and I know is sounds silly), but what about bathroom breaks. Do we leave the cockpit unattended? I've gone on and one about this in previous threads, but until there is a mountain of evidence showing conclusively that reducing the number of pilots either maintains or increases the safety of a flight, we need to keep staffing as it is. The cockpit crew is the last place we need bleeding-edge technology to come into play. I am all in favor of technology that helps our situational awareness and makes the flight more precise (EGPWS, TAWS, FBW, SAARS, CPDLC, etc), but removing the number one safety tool (a human brain) without something better in its place is just wrong.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 95, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6608 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 88): Are you freakin' kidding??
No.
Quoting HAL (Reply 88): I sure as heck want several more crewmembers all in the cockpit making sure we're doing the right thing while making that approach in stormy weather to an airport where none of the other pilots or controllers speak English as their first language!
Which part of *second crew* was unclear? I am certainly not advocating reducing crew at the highest workload portion of flight, that's ridiculous.
Quoting HAL (Reply 88): So by your reasoning a typical day for a regional (multiple legs, busy airports, and primitive equipment) should have 4 pilots in the cockpit, while a 12+ hour long-haul should have one pilot and several cans of Red Bull?
That wasn't my reasoning and I suspect you know that. However, your general point that a regional pilot actually has a considerably more stressful workload than a long-haul is absolutely true.
Quoting HAL (Reply 94): I fly long-haul, and despite Tdscanuck's preference, there are always times that two heads are better than one, even in mid-cruise.
For the record, that absolutely is not my preference nor did I ever state such a thing. The OP asked about the pilot shortage...I'm pointing several of the ways that airlines/OEMs/regulators *may* attempt to address that shortage. That's not the same thing as preferring a particular solution...I actually stated my preferred solution and it had nothing to do with reduced crewing.
Quoting HAL (Reply 94): time & again, it's been shown that having two pilots in the cockpit is safer than one.
Time & again it's been shown that having three flight crew in the cockpit is safer than two, but we don't have flight engineers anymore.
Quoting HAL (Reply 94): The cockpit crew is the last place we need bleeding-edge technology to come into play.
We'll just take your FBW back then. You'll love how the airplane handles.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 96, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6557 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 94): but removing the number one safety tool (a human brain) without something better in its place is just wrong.
No one is suggesting using current RJ's for SP pax ops... but when we have an all-new RJ design (and on an all-new NB design). At that point a co-pilot's brain would just be ballast.
Quoting Ken Jennings after getting trashed by Watson: "I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords."
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
delta2ual From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 97, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6519 times:
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 45): Robotic Laparoscopic Surgery is becoming routine and even sought out.
That's true, but it hasn't affected our staffing: we still have the surgeon, anesthesia provider, circulating nurse, and even the scrub nurse (who, instead of handing instruments to the surgeon, changes the arms/instruments on the DaVinci or whichever robot).
From the world's largest airline-to the world's largest airline. Delta2ual
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2675 posts, RR: 5 Reply 98, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6495 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 77): I don't disagree at all, but I still think it will happen. Not today or tomorrow, but it will be considered in the next 5-7 years.
That is way too optimistic a time schedule.
It has taken decades and several fatigue related accidents just to get simple rest rules in place. And even those rules are complicated.
New aviation rules churn there way through the halls of the FAA very slowly.
Re: single pilot...there would have to be a major breakthrough in current technology that completely changes the conversation for this to happen. It just isn't there yet.
I landed on runway 27 in Boston last night with winds 230 16 gusting to 24. On a cold, dark, windy night...you need someone up there that knows what the hell is going on. PFDs on your phone may make you feel enpowered, but if you were sitting in the pilots seat with your phone last night, you would realize you showed up to a gun fight with a plastic knife.
With our current technology, pilots are still needed. And since they are human, a back up is needed. Nothing human based is run without a backup.
As for the new 1500 hour/ATP rule, had Romney won (more pro business) there may have been a push to make loopholes in this to make it a law on paper, not in action.
With Obama in place, and so many other more important things facing the country, these new rules will go into effect and the market will have to adjust.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 99, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6476 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 98):
That is way too optimistic a time schedule.
Agreed. Technology isn't really the issue, it's regulations and public perception that will be the time limiter, but whatever shortage is coming is going to hit years before operations catch up to dealing with it through reduced head requirements. That means, regardless of where you stand on the idea of reduced crewing in any form, the airlines need a strategy to staff at current crewing requirements for many years to come. Those bodies have to come from somewhere.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 100, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6460 times:
Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 93): Serious question- How much time does it take for a fresh hire F/O to transition from "zero to hero" to "quality guy in the right seat"? For someone who chooses to build their time by being a CFI/CFII/MEI, does an additional 1250 (or, when comparing hiring at 500-700 hours, which would require an extra 800-1000 to get to 1500) hours of stalls, steep turns, day VFR cross-countries, and touch-and-gos make a new hire less apt to require babysitting? I'd imagine there'd be some learning curve transitioning from a 172 to CRJ/ERJ/Q400 regardless of how much time one had.
There is really no set number amount since all individuals are different. Some learn faster then others, some can't learn at all. One of the most important things about the time building is that it weeds out the weaker links. Better to have that done with 172s then in E-145s
Doing only instructing isn't a balanced approach. Preferably there would be a mix of some other type of flying in there, but instructing is certainly better then nothing. When I was instructing I had a few emergency situations (including an engine failure) and multiple cases of students doing making really stupid, almost fatal mistakes.
What I learned from those incidents is the ability to quickly assess a situation and make the appropriate action. I also learned to identify problems and stop them before they became more serious incidents. I would have never learned this if I gone into a regional at 200-250 hours.
I also did a little night cargo work, which was the hardest flying I've ever done and the best place to build quality time but that should diminish what instructors do too. It's still pretty good time, even if it gets a little repetitive.
I'd say the biggest issue with the super low time guys is that they are complacent. They don't know what they don't know, or as engineers would say, the unknown unknowns.
They also have very limited decision making skills because pretty much the entirety of their training was spent in a very safe environment with a flight instructor. It's very different when you have to make the decisions yourself. Although FOs aren't going into the left seat when they start out at a regional there are times where they have to act like Captains. That's why regionals always say/claim, "we don't hire FOs, we hire future Captains." They don't need to have all the knowledge of a veteran Captain but they need to have some form of leadership and experience so they can speak up when things aren't right or take over in the event the Captain becomes incapacitated.
The whole regional industry has a policy of doing everything to the absolute minimum. Hire the minimally qualified pilots and fly them to the FAR max for flight time duty time. The argument is always the same; "It's legal, we meet all FAA requirements." Ok sure you do, but just because something is legal, doesn't make it safe.
In answer to your other question, yes there is a bit of a transition going from a 172 to a regional aircraft, but the higher time guys usually handle it the best because they have experience.
n6238p From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6447 times:
I want to meet the instructor that flies 50 hours in a week and ask them how much they flew the week after. I was a former part time instructor for a 141 university and along with the other part timers, we were lucky if we squeezed 100 hours of dual in a semester. As for full timers I know just a handful that have flown even close to 500 hours in a year. These are from major schools in the midwest, Illinois, Lewis, Purdue, Parks, SIU to name just a few. That UND article is a great ad for the school and nothing more. The only places I know of that are flying their instructors half that much are in fact these zero to hero pilot mills. How many flight instructor positions are there that fly those kinds of hours? It surely cant be more than a few thousand. Is the banner tower going to get 500 hours of cross country time? The kid flying traffic watch going to get 50 hours of actual in an airplane? Name me a charter operation thats going to fly someone more than 300-400 hours in the year. And how many of those jobs are there out there anyways? 10-20 years ago the opportunities to time build where everywhere. Small freight operations had SIC programs, other places had no problem with people tagging along and flying dead legs. Places to time build are still around but every year they seem to become less available. Can someone flying their first hour today work really hard and make it to an airline? Absolutely! Will everyone who wants to make it to an airline make it? No. Will the number of young pilots in the US be able to keep up with the demand of the US market? Not a chance in hell.
The food chain from student pilot to 25,000hr 777 captain is being interrupted at the most important link for a career pilot with the ATP rule. I wasn't flying back when 2,000-3,000 hours was the minimum it took to become an F/O on a Metro or Brasilia. But I know the technology and training we have today has made exponential growth from what it was back then. Pay aside, I don't know how airlines are going to keep up with the demand.
To actively root against anybody is just low, and I hope karma comes back at you with a vengeance
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 102, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6422 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 98): Re: single pilot...there would have to be a major breakthrough in current technology that completely changes the conversation for this to happen. It just isn't there yet.
What major technology breakthrough?????
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 98): you need someone up there that knows what the hell is going on
That is why it is called single pilot.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 98): PFDs on your phone may make you feel enpowered, but if you were sitting in the pilots seat with your phone last night, you would realize you showed up to a gun fight with a plastic knife.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 103, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6432 times:
Most pilot jobs suck. The hours are not great, seniority lists that would have you only flying sporadically, continually having the chance to have your license revoked for a bad check up...
I know a few pilots who fly for major carriers, for them it is a part time job they do on the side, most pilots also have a full time job that allows them to be pilots in their spare time.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 104, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6392 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 103): Most pilot jobs suck. The hours are not great, seniority lists that would have you only flying sporadically, continually having the chance to have your license revoked for a bad check up...
But against all those problems is the fact that you're flying! That makes up for a huge amount of "suck", at least for many many people. This is why there continue to be happy pilots out there despite the obstacles you note.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 105, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6351 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 104): But against all those problems is the fact that you're flying! That makes up for a huge amount of "suck", at least for many many people. This is why there continue to be happy pilots out there despite the obstacles you note.
And that is why a lot of pilots have another job and don't do it as their primary vocation. It is more of a hobby for them. I travel with a pilot for a Far East cargo carrier based in HKG, but he lives down the hall from where my partner lives in London. He is also sells insurance and does quite well at it.
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 106, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6294 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 105): And that is why a lot of pilots have another job and don't do it as their primary vocation. It is more of a hobby for them.
This applies to a VERY SMALL number of pilots overall.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, RR: 74 Reply 107, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6211 times:
Quoting bahadir (Reply 43): There is no shortage of pilots. There are two things that need to happen :
Try and tell that to the airlines where I am
Deliveries are being deferred because of... lack of pilots.
Foreign pilots being looked at, a lot of them, don't make the cut...
(We were amazed at the poor standard of pilots coming from a bankrupt European carrier applying here... I mean, descending your A320 from cruise to approach using SPDSEL, VS and HDG... come on...)
The shortage here continues... but this does raise one point... if Europe at one stage had to sacrifice quality for quantity.. how long before we have to... (we did in the past, with disastrous consequences).
Quoting BostonMike (Reply 45): Presently, their first officers are capped at around $34,000 a year no matter how many years they have been employed or what type of equipment they operate.
That's for regionals? OMG! Man, the situation suck there big time. We get senior right seat guys on propellers getting that, and some getting more... AFTER tax... and... we're still short of pilots!
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53): My dream situation would be for the US airlines to switch over to cadet or ab initio training but I'm not going to hold my breath on that.
Well, no... ain't gonna solve the shortage in the long run!
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
vio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 9 Reply 108, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6181 times:
Everyone here is talking about hours here as if that's the only important factor. I have seen guys with 1500 hrs in the right seat who should not be there... There will never be more demand than supply when it comes to low time pilots, and I believe this is what this thread is about
Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, RR: 74 Reply 110, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6107 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 109): But what if you're getting vectors the whole way?
It wasn't... and then got SPDSEL/VS on Managed lateral... on an RNAV... with no traffic...
Well, just some are... well, dunno how they made the cut... "fuel savings program? is there such a thing?" *facepalm*
Oh well... (to be fair... The world also have our fair share of 'bad guys' being exported)....
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 111, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6021 times:
Quoting vio (Reply 108): Everyone here is talking about hours here as if that's the only important factor. I have seen guys with 1500 hrs in the right seat who should not be there...
This is true. Hours alone are not necessarily a good indicator of skills or performance. HOWEVER, you have to draw the line somewhere. And, I'm sorry, but there are intangibles that a kid with 300 hours simple DOES NOT POSSESS.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 112, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6007 times:
Quoting aviateur (Reply 111): And, I'm sorry, but there are intangibles that a kid with 300 hours simple DOES NOT POSSESS.
That really depends on what they were doing outside the 300 hours of loggable time. This is one of the issues with using hours as the primary metric...it tells you almost nothing useful.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 113, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5964 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 103): Most pilot jobs suck. The hours are not great, seniority lists that would have you only flying sporadically, continually having the chance to have your license revoked for a bad check up...
I know a few pilots who fly for major carriers, for them it is a part time job they do on the side, most pilots also have a full time job that allows them to be pilots in their spare time.
That is completely incorrect. Most pilot jobs are intense, sometimes stressful, and very rewarding. Unless you are the type of person who would complain about any job, they do not 'suck'. Seniority lists have nothing to do with flying sporadically - again, airlines do not work that way. There is a small percentage of pilots at any airline that are on reserve, or 'on call', and may not fly a full schedule each month, but the airline needs those pilots to cover sickness and other irregular operations. The vast majority of pilots have a full schedule every month. That is what keeps an airline running smoothly. Any airline worth its stock price maximizes the usage of pilots because that is the most efficient use of an expensive resource. And NOBODY I know at my airline, or any other I've worked for, considers flying a 'part time' job. It just doesn't happen that way.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 95): ...I'm pointing several of the ways that airlines/OEMs/regulators *may* attempt to address that shortage. That's not the same thing as preferring a particular solution...I actually stated my preferred solution and it had nothing to do with reduced crewing.
I understand what you were saying. My point is that in the real world, it won't happen because there are safety regulations that come before corporate profits. If the whole point of going single-pilot (even during a portion of the flight) is to save money, it won't happen, because in many areas in aviation, safety trumps the dollar. Airlines will simply have to keep fares a few dollars higher to pay for that second pilot, rather than risk losing a planeload of paying passengers. Since all airlines will have to follow the same rules, there won't be an 'advantage' for some airlines who choose to fly single-pilot.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 114, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5937 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 113): If the whole point of going single-pilot (even during a portion of the flight) is to save money, it won't happen, because in many areas in aviation, safety trumps the dollar.
If that was how the real world worked, we'd still have flight engineers. I don't think anybody advocates reduced crewing, for any phase of flight, if it comes at a safety cost. But once safety is at least on par, and it eventually will be, money is right behind.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 115, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5923 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 114): If that was how the real world worked, we'd still have flight engineers.
I don't buy the argument about Flight Engineers. They performed a function, yes, but that function has been automated. Their job wasn't nearly as much a safety one as it was a mechanical one. I know, because I was an FE for several years before moving up to FO. The point of two pilots is check & balances in the operation and safety of the aircraft. In an ideal world that level of safety would suffice on all flights, but because of the very human tendency to get tired on long flights the governmental regulators decided that flights over eight hours needed a relief pilot so everyone can get some rest. Having a flight engineer was good in the respect of allowing flights up to 12 hours with the same crew, but on shorter flights, even I would admit that the safety aspect was minimally affected by the FE being onboard.
The safety job of having a second pilot can not be automated, at least not by current technology, and with due respect to planemaker's beliefs, not at any time in the next several decades. (Please note that I said safety, not operation aspects).
HAL
[Edited 2012-12-01 21:15:18]
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 116, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5824 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 113): Most pilot jobs are intense
Most??? An emergency ER doctor has an intense job.
Quoting HAL (Reply 113): The vast majority of pilots have a full schedule every month.
And that schedule depending on airline, seniority and schedule... typically works out to 10 to 20 days/month "on duty."
Quoting HAL (Reply 113): And NOBODY I know at my airline, or any other I've worked for, considers flying a 'part time' job.
I known several airline pilots over the years that work overseas flights and that have developed businesses and they definitely consider their flying as a 'part time' job.
Quoting HAL (Reply 113): My point is that in the real world, it won't happen because there are safety regulations that come before corporate profits.
In the real world we already compromise safety for profit... and if one thinks about it for a second it becomes very apparent.
Quoting HAL (Reply 115): They performed a function, yes, but that function has been automated.
And the second pilot job will not only be automated but the avionics and systems that replace the second pilot will be far superior to the second pilot!
Quoting HAL (Reply 115): The point of two pilots is check & balances in the operation and safety of the aircraft.
The point of two pilots is a check & balance on human failings and weaknesses things (including the significant disparity on pilot abilities and competencies - as several pilots have posted in this thread).
As the saying goes, "In the future there will be a pilot and a dog in the cockpit..."
Quoting HAL (Reply 115): The safety job of having a second pilot can not be automated, at least not by current technology, and with due respect to planemaker's beliefs, not at any time in the next several decades. (Please note that I said safety, not operation aspects).
The capability has existed for some time... so it is not a question of technology but the application of technology... and that is moving forward on several fronts so that we will have single pilot cargo flights within the decade followed by pax flights on the next all-new RJ design.
After all the links and references to AGI progress (and aviation needs far, far less than AGI for SP ops) in the various SP related threads... and the amount of news on TV and in the press about the rapid increase in automation in all facets and areas of life and business how can you state "not any time in the next several decades".
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 117, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5750 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 116): After all the links and references to AGI progress (and aviation needs far, far less than AGI for SP ops) in the various SP related threads... and the amount of news on TV and in the press about the rapid increase in automation in all facets and areas of life and business how can you state "not any time in the next several decades".
Why? Because I live in the real world. After watching billions spent trying to get the Next-Gen air traffic control system up and running with little success, it's obvious that the 'electronic dreamers' (you) have a tenuous grasp on how things work in real life. It will be decades in the future, at the least.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 118, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5727 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 113): That is completely incorrect. Most pilot jobs are intense, sometimes stressful, and very rewarding.
As are a lot of jobs.
Quoting aviateur (Reply 106): Quoting brilondon (Reply 105):
And that is why a lot of pilots have another job and don't do it as their primary vocation. It is more of a hobby for them.
This applies to a VERY SMALL number of pilots overall.
PS
You are right, as I am basing my information on what I have been told by my partner's neighbour, and what a friend of mine experienced when he was a pilot trying to get into a major airline. The majority of pilots, the ones I am talking about, do not fly with large carriers, neither of the pilots I talked to are with major airlines.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 119, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5676 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 117): Why? Because I live in the real world. After watching billions spent trying to get the Next-Gen air traffic control system up and running with little success, it's obvious that the 'electronic dreamers' (you) have a tenuous grasp on how things work in real life. It will be decades in the future, at the least.
Attempting to equate the behind schedule replacement of our Cold War era ATC by government bureaucracy/political wrangling (e.g. Congressional Reps. blocking implementation because it entails shutting down obsolete ATC facilities in their districts) and there not being SP ops before "decades in the future, at least"... "it's obvious that (you) have a tenuous grasp," to put it politely, of the issues involved, including an understanding of information technology and a comprehension of Moore's Law.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
PH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 120, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5640 times:
Ah planemaker and his obsession of SP operated aircraft...
"not any time in the next several decades".
In 25 years the 737max and a320neo will still, by far, be the most widely operated aircraft in the world. And sure enough there will be 2 man in the cockpit. For the next 30-40 years SP operations will, without a doubt, be a minority of all air traffic.
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 121, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5606 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 116): After all the links and references to AGI progress (and aviation needs far, far less than AGI for SP ops) in the various SP related threads... and the amount of news on TV and in the press about the rapid increase in automation in all facets and areas of life and business how can you state "not any time in the next several decades".
When it comes to flying, the TV and press have no bloody idea what the #^&*$ they are talking about.
HAL is correct. This is not going to happen.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 122, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5594 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 113): That is completely incorrect. Most pilot jobs are intense, sometimes stressful, and very rewarding. Unless you are the type of person who would complain about any job, they do not 'suck'. Seniority lists have nothing to do with flying sporadically - again, airlines do not work that way. There is a small percentage of pilots at any airline that are on reserve, or 'on call', and may not fly a full schedule each month, but the airline needs those pilots to cover sickness and other irregular operations. The vast majority of pilots have a full schedule every month. That is what keeps an airline running smoothly. Any airline worth its stock price maximizes the usage of pilots because that is the most efficient use of an expensive resource. And NOBODY I know at my airline, or any other I've worked for, considers flying a 'part time' job. It just doesn't happen that way.
Thank you HAL.
PS
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 12 Reply 123, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5595 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 103): Most pilot jobs suck. The hours are not great, seniority lists that would have you only flying sporadically, continually having the chance to have your license revoked for a bad check up...
I know a few pilots who fly for major carriers, for them it is a part time job they do on the side, most pilots also have a full time job that allows them to be pilots in their spare time.
brilondon: I'm sorry, but this post of yours is ridiculous and ought to be deleted. You have no idea what you are talking about.
- Patrick Smith
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 124, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5524 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 116): And the second pilot job will not only be automated but the avionics and systems that replace the second pilot will be far superior to the second pilot!
I'm wondering what tasks you think the second pilot does that would be able to be automated away. Something other than a blanket "everything", be specific please.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 125, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5525 times:
Quoting aviateur (Reply 123): brilondon: I'm sorry, but this post of yours is ridiculous and ought to be deleted. You have no idea what you are talking about.
- Patrick Smith
I would disagree in part. I am not a pilot and do not work for any airline. But, I do know pilots.
Of the ones I know they break into 3 main categories:
1) Someone who loves flying - has paid for their own flying lessons - flys several hours a month to several hours a week (I know one who flys an average of 5 X per week); but, is not interested in flying as a career as they generally would have to take a significant pay cut to get hired into a regional airline (Otherwise - if it represented even money or better many of them would jump at the chance to fly as a career).
2) Working in regional or main airline - not much seniority. Lots of hours (at least 1 hour for every flight hour), pay not the greatest, often away from home. This is a real job by any comparison with most industrial or other transportation industry jobs.
3) Decades of experience with major airlines: High Seniority - can chose their schedule and home base is the local airport. Flying is rarely more than effectively a half time job. Typically own another business as a 2nd job.
So - I also have seen the 3rd case; but there are far more people in the first two categories - and most airline pilots effectively work long hours until they get into a very senior position.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 126, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5482 times:
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 120): Ah planemaker and his obsession of SP operated aircraft...
Being informed about the geometric progression of information technology is simply being aware of what is happening around us. If you do not see the eventual advent of SP ops it is only because you don't understand geometric progression and what it represents in IT and automation.
Quoting aviateur (Reply 121): When it comes to flying, the TV and press have no bloody idea what the #^&*$ they are talking about.
I did not say anything about the TV and press writing about aviation so you completely missed the point of the section that you quoted.
Join the ranks of all the people that said the same about autonomous cars... and ate their words when Google proved them wrong.
Quoting Mir (Reply 124): I'm wondering what tasks you think the second pilot does that would be able to be automated away. Something other than a blanket "everything", be specific please.
Everything means everything. Every single task.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 127, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5500 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 125): I am not a pilot and do not work for any airline...
Which means you have not experienced the industry like someone who is in the industry, and knows hundreds of pilots.
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 125): Typically own another business as a 2nd job.
Again, quite simply wrong. Major airline pilots almost never own a second business. Their free time at home is too precious to spend keeping another business viable.
Quoting brilondon (Reply 118): The majority of pilots, the ones I am talking about, do not fly with large carriers,
That's bad information. There are far more pilots working for major airlines than for regionals. According to the Airline Pilot Central website the breakdown is as follows for airlines in the United States:
Major Airlines (which includes any airline that flies larger jets, including legacy airlines, & large aircraft cargo carriers)
62255 active pilots, 4047 on furlough
If you count only the airlines that are considered 'majors' in the U.S., meaning they have revenue of over $1B per year, the total is still 55702 active pilots, with 3310 on furlough
Regional Airlines (any airline that operates RJ's & turboprops, including small cargo carriers)
21488 active pilots, 263 on furlough
I haven't included foreign carriers with bases in the US like Cathay, or any 135 operators.
So you can see that there are almost three times as many large-aircraft airlines compared to the regionals, and more than twice as many for just the majors compared to regionals. No matter how you slice it, there are a lot more pilots flying big planes than small ones.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 128, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5490 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 119): ...of the issues involved, including an understanding of information technology and a comprehension of Moore's Law.
planemaker, again with all due respect, you quote Moore's Law like it's carved in stone, or is an immutable truth like the laws of physics.
It is not.
It is a simply an approximation of how information technology has progressed in the past few decades. It can not, and will not continue at that pace forever, just as nothing can increase forever given the limitations of size on the planet Earth. Just ask everyone who has fallen for a pyramid scheme.
We get it, really we do, planemaker. Technology is progressing rapidly, and those in charge of developing that technology feel they can design ways to replace people in the jobs we do. I just believe you are not seeing the extraordinary details of what the human brain has to do in order to safely get people from point A to point B. I also know you'll argue that point with intangible arguments like "it's already happened", and "it's coming in the next 10 years". If what you are pointing to are the UAVs being operated by the military, then we as pilots have very little to fear. If it's something else, then please, stop being so vague, and show us where the 'incredible developments' are.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
Antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1505 posts, RR: 4 Reply 129, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5484 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 126): Join the ranks of all the people that said the same about autonomous cars... and ate their words when Google proved them wrong.
I'm pretty sure most people knew that a self-driving car would be possible... but it has yet to prove itself both viable and practical. Time will tell if the market will accept it for mass production. The same is true of any airliner with a single pilot. The technology to do it is here NOW. The regulatory and public acceptance is still quite a ways (more than a decade, probably multiple decades) off.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7729 posts, RR: 73 Reply 130, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5496 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 14): I don't know if reducing the 1500 to 500 would even be enough to fill the needs at the regional level in the next 3-5 years. I would not be surprised to see someone petition for single pilot operations at the regional level.
Just a minor correction, the requirement will be to hold an ATP, not 1500 hrs. I think you will see a number of schools in the US being able to issue ATPs to pilots with around 500 hrs, and maybe only 200 of those in an aircraft.
Quoting jonnyclark (Reply 20): That's self funded, and to our American cousins, at a cost of roughly $140-150,000. You can just imagine what that means.
This is the sad state the industry is in, in real terms the cost of gaining and maintaining our qualifications has increased above the inflation rate, while salaries have gone backwards, or not kept up with inflation. That in addition to reduced conditions, and less time off, the job is not one I would be recommending to new entrants.
A lot of this unfortunately is due to people paying for line training and ratings, many airlines now factor this into the cost structure.This flows onto the whole industry worldwide.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 131, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5479 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 126): Everything means everything. Every single task.
Well then you're mistaken. A computer cannot perceive a cockpit dynamic (i.e. the current workload and priorities of the PF) and adjust the way it conducts its tasks accordingly the way a human can (which is the biggest asset that a good PM can bring).
If you're going to look at the duties of a PM as simply being a gear monkey and running checklists, then that could probably be automated away in the near future. But the duties of the PM have evolved past that, and you'd really need a true artificial intelligence in order to replace them. That's coming, of course, but not within the time frame that you've specified.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 133, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5452 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 128): planemaker, again with all due respect, you quote Moore's Law like it's carved in stone, or is an immutable truth like the laws of physics.
It is not.
For the purpose of this discussion it is.
Quoting HAL (Reply 128): It can not, and will not continue at that pace forever,
Again, for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't need to. We'll have AGI as early as 2030 by some estimates.
Quoting HAL (Reply 128): Technology is progressing rapidly
That is a major understatement. In 15 years computer power will not be 100 times more powerful, nor 1,000 times more powerful... but over 30,000 times more powerful. Unfortunately you haven't been able to comprehend what that represents.
Quoting HAL (Reply 128): I just believe you are not seeing the extraordinary details of what the human brain has to do in order to safely get people from point A to point B.
We already have SP bizjets... there is nothing "extraordinary" about going from point A to B safely. And in 15 years with IT over 30,000 times more powerful than today there absolutely won't be any need for two pilots.
Quoting HAL (Reply 128): I also know you'll argue that point with intangible arguments like "it's already happened", and "it's coming in the next 10 years".
As I have already pointed out (and not just in this thread)... that GE and the FAA have been working on SP cockpits for cargo flights, that EMB has started studies for a next gen SP RJ, that BAE and the UK Government have carried out tests for commercial SP ops are not "intangible."
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 129): I'm pretty sure most people knew that a self-driving car would be possible.
Actually, in past discussions about SP ops only a few thought it possible. The "deniers" took comfort in that no entry succeeded in the first Darpa Grand Challenge. When a couple of teams were successful the second year they moved onto the the Darpa Urban Challenge as their litmus test that proved them right. When teams were successful in that Challenge the deniers moved on to saying that the cars would never work in the "real" world.
Quoting Mir (Reply 131): Well then you're mistaken.
I'm not mistaken. With IT systems over 30,000 times more powerful than today's, an SP RJ in ~15 years would obviously not mirror today's cockpit designed for two crew.
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 132): Ah yes the autonomous cars.... Ever seen one driving on a public road? Makes you wonder why not...
Google has had a fleet of them out for a couple of years now and 3 states have legalized autonomous cars. And BMW has been testing autonomous cars in Germany.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
PH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 134, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5437 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 133): Google has had a fleet of them out for a couple of years now
Exactly my point... still it is not viable to produce and operate them (and will not be for 40+ years at the very least), although technology is there. Why do they still build trains with a drivers seat? And why will they still build trains with drivers seat for the next 30+ years.. Technology is already there, there are even metro lines with unmanned trains...
For the next 40+ years the VAST majority of planes will be flown multi pilot. Embraer even acknowledged that airlines are not coming to them with the idea of a 1 man cockpit and they seriously doubt if there will be a market for it. However they want to be ready for it, IF market demand will be there in the 2025-2030 time frame. Airlines are much, much, much more interested in fuel efficient engines than a 1 man cockpit (which would be no more than a very small cost saving anyways; quite a few airlines actually have their F/O's pay to build hours, so they are making money having this second pilot on board).
Funny thing is that you seem to have a pretty good understanding of technological advancement, but ignore economic viability, which is not uncommon for people in IT.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 135, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5368 times:
Single pilot is a lovely topic to discuss, but can we start a new thread on it (or revive the old one), rather than clogging this one up?
Whether single pilot ops show up or not, we're going to have two-crew airliners flying the vast majority of flights for decades so the pilot shortage will have to be dealt with some other way in the short/medium term.
silentbob From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1646 posts, RR: 1 Reply 136, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5358 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 135): Whether single pilot ops show up or not, we're going to have two-crew airliners flying the vast majority of flights for decades so the pilot shortage will have to be dealt with some other way in the short/medium term.
Without changing the existing regulations, single pilot operations is going to be the only other way airlines will be able to fill all of the expected vacancies.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 137, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5285 times:
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 134): Exactly my point... still it is not viable to produce and operate them (and will not be for 40+ years at the very least), although technology is there.
The DARPA Urban Challenge was only a few years ago but already the automakers have adopted some autonomous technology in their vehicles. Several say that autonomous cars could be available within 10 years... not 40 (which makes no sense when one thinks about it.)
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 134): And why will they still build trains with drivers seat for the next 30+ years.
No they won't... we'll have AGI before then. BTW, in Australia they are already operating robotic ore carriers and trains.
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 134): Embraer even acknowledged that airlines are not coming to them with the idea of a 1 man cockpit
With a ~15 year SP horizon of course regional airlines are not going to EMB requesting SP RJs. Furthermore, considering the volatility of the industry it should be abundantly clear that they have more pressing concerns at the moment.
The EMB SP RJ concept was a natural development from the work they did on their SP bizjets where, as an example, they were able to reduce to 1 or 2 items for every 10 on a checklist due to automation. With the geometric progression of computing power it was an inescapable conclusion that an SP RJ would be viable within ~15 years.
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 134): Funny thing is that you seem to have a pretty good understanding of technological advancement, but ignore economic viability, which is not uncommon for people in IT.
It should be readily apparent. And I haven't ignored "economic viability"... in previous SP threads that you have been on I have laid out the economic benefits of SP.
Quoting silentbob (Reply 136): Without changing the existing regulations, single pilot operations is going to be the only other way airlines will be able to fill all of the expected vacancies.
I agree but I don't think that the industry is through with consolidation and rationalization and that process will deal with a portion of the "expected vacancies". As well, projecting on the work that Redbird has been doing I can see existing regulations adjusting to their experience and ongoing R&D within a few years to lower cost and time requirements.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 138, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5275 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 119): Attempting to equate the behind schedule replacement of our Cold War era ATC by government bureaucracy/political wrangling (e.g. Congressional Reps. blocking implementation because it entails shutting down obsolete ATC facilities in their districts) and there not being SP ops before "decades in the future, at least"... "it's obvious that (you) have a tenuous grasp," to put it politely, of the issues involved, including an understanding of information technology and a comprehension of Moore's Law.
This is the same government, that is going to have to approve this SP operation. This is the same FAA that is taking over 2 years now to approve a US airline to use ipads for 100% of required charts and manuals. To get an SP operation approved, it will require a burecract to stick his neck out a long way and that is not likely, especially in passenger operations.
Additionally, going to SP is really not a lot of money, crew cost are now only the 2nd largest expense and by going to 1/2 the pilots you are only eliminating 1/3 the cost. Additionally, in order to get the unions on board in a big way, they are going to insist on a share of this productivity gain no doubt. In reality there is no big push for this to happen at all.
Engineers put a rover on mars with spacecraft that require zero on-board human intervention. The technology is already there as far as computing power so moore's law is not relevant, today's computers could already be manufactured to fly themselves from ORD-LAX...no problem...as long as any problems encoutered were not too far outside the box.
What engineers don't know, because their is no data, is how many times that 2nd pilot averted an accident, so for you to just state unequivically that computers could replace the 2nd pilot is false, you don't truly know. Occassionally it's major, like an FO taking over when a CA has a heart attack at 200 feet on departure. But most times, it's much more suttle, like when an FO says "I was just in here last week Captain, and the rubber build up on the far end is getting pretty bad on this runway, maybe your idea to roll to the end before getting the airplane stopped is not such a good idea." As far as business jets, if an airline had the safety record of corporate jets, their would be calls for the airline to be grounded, so that is not a good comparisson.
Efficiency advancement in airline flying is tough because the "equivilant level of safety" bar that is used when evaluating new technologies is a tough bar to cross when the fault rate is virtually zero, an increase in the number of fatal accidents by .0001/100,000 hours would be perceived as airplanes falling out of the sky.
As far as low time pilots...the problem is the fact that once you start flying airliners exclusively, you cease to significantly increase your basic piloting skills. If you start flying airliners at 300 hours, you will have the airmanship skills of a 300 hour pilot when you have 8000 hours in the book.
A symptom that there is a lack of basic piloting skills in airline cockpits is you will see more "ga" type accidents with pilots not being able to recover from an aerodynamic stall at 2000 feet in an airliner. I can even imagine a crew not being able to recover a jet from a stall with 37,000 feet margin before hitting the water...oh wait...both of those already happened. Both Colgan and AF accidents had pilots that got hired into airliners with very low time. AF has still not released the flight time of the pilot that was at the controls.
As far as requiring 1500 hours to fly an airliner, I agree that it is true that there are many 1500 hour pilots that are more scary than a lot of 300 hour pilots. However, what the 1500 hours guarantees is not that there is in fact a history to be examined. For the same reason that there are many future employees that have no work experience that are being passed over, and there are many good credit risks that are being passed over for mortgages. It's not that they don't exist, it's that without requiring some sort of experience first, there is no way to differentiate the good from the bad. If you survive 1500 hours insructing or running night-checks, you're either lucky or good, and probably a little of both. With a 300 hour pilot you just don't know.
Quoting silentbob (Reply 136): Without changing the existing regulations, single pilot operations is going to be the only other way airlines will be able to fill all of the expected vacancies.
That is simply not true. The airlines could also do what every other business does when facing a talent shortage...they could raise wages/benefits in order to attract the pilots they need.
The regionals in the past were able to get away with paying FO's 15k a year because the carrot at the end of the stick was nice and fat (major airline salary/benefits). If the Captain salary at a major airline had kept pace with inflation when I started flying, that salary would now be well north of 400k.
That's what made us put up with the poor pay/work conditions for so long. By the time I got to a major that carrot had already shrunk by quite a bit. Those of us already in the business, that had already "paid our dues" are disappointed the carrot isn't as big as we thought, however, an airline pilot career is still the best option for us going forward as the worst is behind us. That is not true for new people starting out, and I quite frankly cannot see, how a smart young person starting out today, can rationally decide to make airline flying a career. I know that I certainly would not.
Regional airlines (and everybody up and down the food chain) took great advantage of the fat carrot at the end of the stick of the major airlines, we considered ourselves lucky if we got to FLY FOR FREE. Now that the carrot is much smaller, they are going to have to adjust their wages to reflect that fact. What you hear now is just mere whining from management hoping that the government will come to their rescue...just like everybody else in this country I guess, so why not.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 139, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5276 times:
Ah, engineers going back and forth about automating pilots out of the plane. Single pilot, while doubtful, maybe find its way into part 121 (but under what cost to pilot utilization for rest/duty period times, thus likely causing the need for a similar amount of pilots anyways) in the next 15 years.
As far as the coming pilot boom- I don't see ATP minimums being reduced. The regionals are currently being reduced in size, which will help stave off some of the demand as jobs are transferred (at least at DL) back to mainline over the next 3 years. Higher paying jobs = higher demand= more candidates wanting it.
Currently the issue is the pay at the regionals with too many "lifers" taking up the captain slots that used to be vacated for mainline.
With UA and US hiring, and AA and DL likely to be in reasonable order- that will start the upflow from the regional captains, thus freeing up more regional captain positions, thus the previous natural progression.
Oh, and getting 1500 hours prior to getting on at a regional is no big deal. There are numerous jobs out there- all it takes is some sniffing around and networking. There is ZERO excuse to not be able to get it.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 140, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5230 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): This is the same FAA that is taking over 2 years now
Yes, the FAA can move very slowly but we are talking about 15 years out on SP and there will be a large body of evidence on key factors over the next 5 - 10 years.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): Additionally, going to SP is really not a lot of money
The economic benefits are much more than just pilot pay.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): there is no big push for this to happen at all.
I agree that there is no push but it will eventually happen as a natural progression of the continuing pace of automation in the aerospace industry (and business at large).
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): so for you to just state unequivically that computers could replace the 2nd pilot is false, you don't truly know.
You are imagining an SP cockpit as a duplicate of the two crew cockpit but with the FO being a computer... and that will not be the case.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): As far as business jets, if an airline had the safety record of corporate jets, their would be calls for the airline to be grounded, so that is not a good comparisson.
We are talking about ~15 years hence and we will certainly have progressed far beyond the technology on today's SP bizjets. I don't understand why people use what is in essence yesterday's technology and imagine that is what we'll have in ~15 years.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): As far as requiring 1500 hours to fly an airliner, I agree that it is true that there are many 1500 hour pilots that are more scary than a lot of 300 hour pilots.
As many have posted in various threads, there is little benefit after a certain point of simply boring holes through the sky. As I mentioned previously, what Redbird is doing is one example of a first step in improving the quality of flight training and over the next few years as empirical evidence is accumulated from R&D efforts changes to flight training and flight "experience" (not simply hours) accumulation will be made.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): The airlines could also do what every other business does when facing a talent shortage...they could raise wages/benefits in order to attract the pilots they need.
They will... but only when the talent shortage effects their bottom line.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
ual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1478 posts, RR: 5 Reply 141, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5213 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 140):
Yes, the FAA can move very slowly but we are talking about 15 years out on SP and there will be a large body of evidence on key factors over the next 5 - 10 years.
I don't see it. There are way too many factors to make this a reality for airliners. This flies in the face of just about every CRM cornerstone there is. Fatigue, cross-checking, checklists, radios, hell who's going to watch the front-end if someone has to use the lav? There are many situations where the other guy called a go around. If they hadn't, everybody would have died. I don't think you fully understand just how busy things get in the 121 environment.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 140):
We are talking about ~15 years hence and we will certainly have progressed far beyond the technology on today's SP bizjets. I don't understand why people use what is in essence yesterday's technology and imagine that is what we'll have in ~15 years.
We are talking 30+ years....maybe.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 140):
As many have posted in various threads, there is little benefit after a certain point of simply boring holes through the sky. As I mentioned previously, what Redbird is doing is one example of a first step in improving the quality of flight training and over the next few years as empirical evidence is accumulated from R&D efforts changes to flight training and flight "experience" (not simply hours) accumulation will be made.
Wrong. 300 hours teaches you how to kill yourself. While I think 1,500 is a little steep, having really low time guys come in to an airline environment leaves them with a critical lack of decision-making experience.
It is because you are looking at it from your existing paradigm and not ~15 years hence. Even today look at the cockpit/avionics/technology difference between a CRJ200 and the 787. With the geometric progression of computer technology the advancement will be 1,000s of time greater.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 143, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5152 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 142): Even today look at the cockpit/avionics/technology difference between a CRJ200 and the 787
A better comparison in the correct time frame would be the 777 and the 787. Those are 20 years apart in release. A CRJ 200 is actually 7-10 years prior technology with the mid-early 80's tech, so that is almost 30 years tech in predating the 787.
Regardless, the technology isn't that much different. Better processing, new LCD displays... but it's overall about the same. Systems management and integration has improved but is not really simplified from a pilot perspective... flight guidance is identical with a better (not more simple, though) interface.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 144, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5107 times:
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 143): flight guidance is identical with a better (not more simple, though) interface.
Anyone who's flown an IAN approach would seriously contest that assertion.
An interim step, probably, will be to segregate the crew capabilities. Fully redundant training/certification across the flight crews, though operationally simple, isn't all that cost effective.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 145, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5103 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 144): Anyone who's flown an IAN approach would seriously contest that assertion.
The 777 has IAN capability... so does the A320 (late 80s tech). Granted, those are software updates, but it is through the same tech as 20 years ago.
ual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1478 posts, RR: 5 Reply 146, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5062 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 142):
It is because you are looking at it from your existing paradigm and not ~15 years hence. Even today look at the cockpit/avionics/technology difference between a CRJ200 and the 787. With the geometric progression of computer technology the advancement will be 1,000s of time greater.
Its not an issue of technology, its an issue of the environment. The airports are too busy, the hours are too long, and the aircraft too complex to go with one pilot. Even if there was an ACARS-type system for instructions, there are still tens of thousands of airplanes that use radios, and you would still have to listen to the frequency for situational awareness. Hell, theres plenty of aircraft that still dont have transponders.
Im interested to see what this new paradigm is...can you enlighten me please?
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 147, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5011 times:
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 143): A better comparison in the correct time frame would be the 777 and the 787.
It isn't a better comparison because IT progresses geometrically not linearly.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 143): Regardless, the technology isn't that much different.
The architecture and capabilities are very, very different. (BTW, a bit of trivia, the 787's avionics suite weighs 2,000 lbs less than the 767's). Of course there are going to be "superficial" display similarities - on "purpose". WN even "copied" the Classic steam gauge cockpit on their NG PFDs for commonality. If you are looking for "glitz" even "lowly" pistons like Cirrus have "glitzy" displays with visual "bells and whistles" with synthetic and enhanced vision systems, etc.
Quoting ual777 (Reply 146): and the aircraft too complex to go with one pilot.
You are talking about current RJs that were designed over a decade ago for two crew... the discussion is about all-new RJ designs ~15 years in the future.
Quoting ual777 (Reply 146): Even if there was an ACARS-type system for instructions
There will be digital data communication with ATC.
Quoting ual777 (Reply 146): there are still tens of thousands of airplanes that use radios, and you would still have to listen to the frequency for situational awareness.
Any conflict would appear on the PFD as is already happening with equipped aircraft.
Quoting ual777 (Reply 146): Hell, theres plenty of aircraft that still dont have transponders.
You don't really believe that is even an issue today... let alone in 15 years.
Quoting ual777 (Reply 146): Im interested to see what this new paradigm is...can you enlighten me please?
In a nutshell, for easy comprehension, think of an RJ along the operational concept of the optionally piloted Northrup Grumman Firebird... but 1,000s of times more advanced.
[Edited 2012-12-04 02:27:15]
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 428 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4996 times:
Forgive me for interrupting the single-pilot debate (regardless of the technological improvements, I abhor the idea of only having one human brain on the flight deck of a large aircraft), but I saw something on the lines of the original topic that I wanted to comment on. As someone who had/has desires to fly professionally, maybe my thought process will be helpful to someone, or someone can correct me?
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): The airlines could also do what every other business does when facing a talent shortage...they could raise wages/benefits in order to attract the pilots they need.
The regionals in the past were able to get away with paying FO's 15k a year because the carrot at the end of the stick was nice and fat (major airline salary/benefits). If the Captain salary at a major airline had kept pace with inflation when I started flying, that salary would now be well north of 400k.
That's what made us put up with the poor pay/work conditions for so long. By the time I got to a major that carrot had already shrunk by quite a bit. Those of us already in the business, that had already "paid our dues" are disappointed the carrot isn't as big as we thought, however, an airline pilot career is still the best option for us going forward as the worst is behind us. That is not true for new people starting out, and I quite frankly cannot see, how a smart young person starting out today, can rationally decide to make airline flying a career. I know that I certainly would not.
That post, and in particular the emphasized part, has been the core of my thought process over the last few years. From the age of 6 until the post-9/11 airline layoffs (I was 20 and in community college studying aviation), I had a one-track-mind of wanting to be a commercial airline pilot. I gave it up thinking that I'd never get enough hours to stand out in a field where so many furloughed senior pilots were looking for work.
I have to be honest...I opened this thread hoping against hope that the employment prospects were changing enough that it might be possible to make a go for a career after all. I'm not opposed to the workload a regional airline job promises (as described by others in this thread) or the load of "lower" jobs needed to accrue flight time to even get to that point, but the idea of going $100K+ in debt with no reasonable chance of getting a job that earns more than $20K a year (which isn't enough to survive on, let alone try to build anything resembling a life) just isn't realistic. I love flying; it's always been my greatest passion. I currently make $30K/year; if I thought that I could realistically transition to a flying job that paid the same, I'd do it without even thinking twice even with taking on that sort of debt. However, as PassedV1 pointed out, it flat-out isn't practical at this stage in the game.
I'd love nothing more than to see this change, and it may well do so someday, but I'm not holding my breath...
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 149, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4937 times:
Quoting ual777 (Reply 146): The airports are too busy, the hours are too long, and the aircraft too complex to go with one pilot
Quoting ual777 (Reply 146): Im interested to see what this new paradigm is...can you enlighten me please?
I reiterate my request to get the single pilot discussion onto another thread if we want to go into the technical details. The simple explanation to your question is that it's a chicken and egg problem...current airliners and operations are designed around two-person crews so, obviously, they don't work with one person. If (if!) it even happens, the entire workshare will be altered. It's not about replacing the FO with a computer...that will not work. It's about designing aircraft and ATC procedures such that one person onboard has enough free brain power to bring the best of human capabilities to the situation.
But, like we said, that will take longer than we have to work out any potential pilot shortage so...
Quoting warden145 (Reply 148): I have to be honest...I opened this thread hoping against hope that the employment prospects were changing enough that it might be possible to make a go for a career after all.
As of about 12 months ago, the spouse of a pilot I fly with a lot had been furloughed from a Part 121 carrier and was offered a recall...and turned it down. So someone who already had all the ratings and had a guaranteed seat on something better than an RJ decided it wasn't worth making a career of it now that they were out. Given that, I have no idea how the decision makes sense for someone just starting.
Quoting warden145 (Reply 148): I love flying; it's always been my greatest passion.
I'd suggest going with my plan...work in aviation, but not as a pilot, so you have have a decent wage and quality of life and get to play with airplanes. Then use your wages to fly on the side for the joy of it.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14360 posts, RR: 26 Reply 150, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4910 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): That is not true for new people starting out, and I quite frankly cannot see, how a smart young person starting out today, can rationally decide to make airline flying a career. I know that I certainly would not.
The answer is that it isn't a rational decision. They love to fly, enough to put up with all the crap that being a professional pilot requires. Shiny Jet Syndrome can be very powerful.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 151, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4820 times:
You guys are right, the latest most advanced aircraft... at the cutting edge of technology... are supremely reliable and capable of handling any problem that might arise without needing onboard pilot intervention.
Oh wait, United just had a 787 divert today, "nearest suitable airport" style for multiple electrical failures. Good thing the electrical system wouldn't have anything to do with the computers flying an un-/remotely-piloted airliner.
2 underpaid pilots once again got 184 people safely back on the ground after their airplane didn't do what it was supposed to.
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 152, posted (5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4789 times:
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 151):
2 underpaid pilots once again got 184 people safely back on the ground after their airplane didn't do what it was supposed to.
2 underpaid pilots:
Likely not true. I understand that United Pilots are paid very well. Also I understand that these would have been senior pilots at or near the top of the pay scale.
Airplane didn't do what it was supposed to.
Airplane was designed to continue flying safely with multiple faults. It did not fall out of the sky and crash. Airplane was designed to be flown by a 2 person flight crew even with multiple failures. The 2 person flight crew was able to land the plane without incident with multiple failures.
Sounds to me that if the same designers said that they designed a plane that could suffer a range of failures and be reasonably safely flown and landed by a single pilot - I'd have a tendency to trust those designers.
I also note - the concept of very expensive single pilot jets that can handle multiple failures is not new at all. The military has had them for decades. The most extreme example of that is the A-10 which was designed to take very large amounts of battle damage and continue to fly - which has been proven a few times.
Personally: I do in fact think that you will see single pilot aircraft for commercial passenger service move from the currently allowed 19 (or less) passengers to the small RJ (perhaps 50-75 seats - perhaps as large as a 100 seats) plane used for short flights (say less than 90 minute airtime). I also believe they will be safer than the current 19 seaters as they will have automatic landing capability. While such a plane can be designed now - I suspect that it will be another decade before it is designed to allow technology to mature more (say entry of service 20 years from now).
I do believe that a 2nd pilot will be maintained for a long time for longer flights and larger aircraft for a while (especially for longer flights to allow for restroom and meal breaks).
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 153, posted (5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4689 times:
Likely not true. I understand that United Pilots are paid very well. Also I understand that these would have been senior pilots at or near the top of the pay scale.
That was more of a facetious statement than anything- a round about way of saying that they very much earned their paycheck in a situation with compounded faults.
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 152): Airplane didn't do what it was supposed to.
Airplane was designed to continue flying safely with multiple faults. It did not fall out of the sky and crash. Airplane was designed to be flown by a 2 person flight crew even with multiple failures. The 2 person flight crew was able to land the plane without incident with multiple failures.
Sounds to me that if the same designers said that they designed a plane that could suffer a range of failures and be reasonably safely flown and landed by a single pilot - I'd have a tendency to trust those designers.
I also note - the concept of very expensive single pilot jets that can handle multiple failures is not new at all. The military has had them for decades. The most extreme example of that is the A-10 which was designed to take very large amounts of battle damage and continue to fly - which has been proven a few times.
It remained flyable, but it had compounded failures which are not supposed to happen. When failures happen on an airliner, one pilot takes over all flying and radio duties while the other pilot runs the checklist and manages the situation. That is proven over and over to be the safest way to manage faults- there is no translation to that for single pilot situations.
I don't think you understand what you are saying about the A-10. Fighter jets are very simple aircraft- they have very basic flight guidance and the complexity in them comes from the weapons system. As far as operating them as compared to an airliner, they are much much simpler when it comes to normal aircraft systems.
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 152): I also believe they will be safer than the current 19 seaters as they will have automatic landing capability.
Automatic landing is only a benefit in very low visibility situations. It's available now in small aircraft as well, but the expense to maintain it is typically too great to be of any benefit. An autoland is actually much higher workload and much more preparation intensive than a regular manual landing.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 154, posted (5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4673 times:
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 153): It remained flyable, but it had compounded failures which are not supposed to happen.
I think you're mixing compound failure (which aren't supposed to happen) with simultaneous failures (which are designed for). So far, I haven't seen any report of a compound failure for this event.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 153): When failures happen on an airliner, one pilot takes over all flying and radio duties while the other pilot runs the checklist and manages the situation. That is proven over and over to be the safest way to manage faults
That's the chicken and egg problem again...two-crew airliners are built to be operated this way so, surprise surprise, that's the safest way to operate them.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 153): I don't think you understand what you are saying about the A-10. Fighter jets are very simple aircraft- they have very basic flight guidance and the complexity in them comes from the weapons system. As far as operating them as compared to an airliner, they are much much simpler when it comes to normal aircraft systems.
The A-10 may be a poor example, but the F-35 is not. It's several times more complex, in virtually every imaginable way except size, than any airliner flying.
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4622 times:
United pilots are not "well paid", unless you are compairing them to real-estate agents and nurses. Not a slam on those two, but pilots used to be compared to doctors.
As far as SP, I think what the hang up is is that some on here are talking about the capability and others are talking about the practicality.
Two years ago, Alaska Airlines started the process of getting approval to use ipads, even issuing every pilot an Ipad-v1. As of this date, we are about to start a 6-12 month trial period of having one pilot with no Jepps, with the other pilot required to continue carrying their Jepps. IF approval is granted by the end of next year the total time from brainstorm - approval will have been MORE THAN 3 years. That is more than 3 years to take a paper chart, put it's image on a screen, in the exact same format, with crews using the information in the exact same way they used the paper charts. Alaska actually has plans to replace the ipad v1's with v3's, but they don't dare right now for fear of setting back the certification process.
Now you want to turn everything that happens in a cockpit around 180 degrees and change everything so that it can be safely done single pilot with an equivilant level of safety. I would bet you that if you started today you would not be able to get the FAA to sign-off on what the proving-runs would look like within the next 15 years never-mind getting it fully approved.
This is not a problem that can be solved with technology. It is not a technical problem.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 156, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4602 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 152): Sounds to me that if the same designers said that they designed a plane that could suffer a range of failures and be reasonably safely flown and landed by a single pilot - I'd have a tendency to trust those designers.
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 152): the concept of very expensive single pilot jets that can handle multiple failures is not new at all. The military has had them for decades. The most extreme example of that is the A-10 which was designed to take very large amounts of battle damage and continue to fly - which has been proven a few times.
That is the whole point of why people have a hard time understanding why I think single-pilot won't happen any time soon. Sure, on most of my flights the FO could technically nod off before we leave the gate, and not wake up until we pull into our destination, and the aircraft would arrive on time. But the SAFETY of the flight has been reduced below an acceptable level. It isn't the physical operation of the flight that is in question (most of the time), but rather one of backing up the decision making process. There are now simply no alternatives to the safety potential of two human brains working in conjunction to make decisions, and provide checks on each others decision making as well. The reason for this is the very high value placed on the lives of the passengers, and the aircraft itself! The federal government has already placed a cost limit on what can acceptably be flown with one pilot, and that number is 9 people. Any more than that, and the government has decided that the decision making ability of the one pilot needs to be backed up (i.e. safety increased) by having a second pilot. It's not a question of physical ability, but of safety, as I have always said, and as have others, like:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 155): This is not a problem that can be solved with technology. It is not a technical problem.
So coming back to the OP's question, I believe the pilot job market is going to boom, because there will be an increased demand for pilots, and despite the desire of some engineers, most commercial aircraft will require at least two pilots in the cockpit for the foreseeable future. It is a good time to get into the industry, armed with the usual caveats that your particular career will be different from anyone else's. Your chosen airline may grow and stay strong, or it may fold. You may have a steady job until retirement, or you may have to jump from one startup job to another. A lot of that is out of your hands, because you don't own the airline, and the business decisions are usually out of your hands. Good luck, have fun, and enjoy the ride.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 157, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4579 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 156): There are now simply no alternatives to the safety potential of two human brains
Yes... "now"... not in ~15 years.
All commercial jets are designed for "two human brains" because human brains need back up because human brains are fallible... and aren't getting any smarter, on the one hand, and on the other not all "human brains" are equally experienced nor intelligent. And even when you have "two human brains" in the cockpit they both sometimes doze off... or both sometimes play on their laptops and overfly their destination by 100's of miles, etc.
As has been pointed out a few times, no one is suggesting single pilot ops on the current "crop" of commercial pax jets (except GE Aviation and the FAA for cargo flights by ~2020).
You say you "get it" - the geometric progression of IT... but you've only been able to frame the your perspective on what is, in essence, yesterday's technology... and not the technology that we'll have in ~15 years.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 158, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4558 times:
Welp, passedV1 nailed it.
I'll give you another example, planemaker: There are still a few active NDBs in the country. They were slated to be phased out in the 60s. We still use VORs every day. They were slated to be phased out in the 80s.
Things in aviation do not follow the geometric curve of progression that unrestricted technology has.
Time to start flight training! There is going to be a lot of movement over the next 15 years.
silentbob From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1646 posts, RR: 1 Reply 159, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4542 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): This is the same government, that is going to have to approve this SP operation. This is the same FAA that is taking over 2 years now to approve a US airline to use ipads for 100% of required charts and manuals. To get an SP operation approved, it will require a burecract to stick his neck out a long way and that is not likely, especially in passenger operations.
When Congressmen start pushing them or pass a law requiring them to do something, they do it.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): Additionally, going to SP is really not a lot of money, crew cost are now only the 2nd largest expense and by going to 1/2 the pilots you are only eliminating 1/3 the cost. Additionally, in order to get the unions on board in a big way, they are going to insist on a share of this productivity gain no doubt. In reality there is no big push for this to happen at all.
Cost doesn't matter if you can't find someone qualified to fly the airplane. The dearth of available, qualified pilots is what will drive the approval process.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): What engineers don't know, because their is no data, is how many times that 2nd pilot averted an accident, so for you to just state unequivically that computers could replace the 2nd pilot is false, you don't truly know.
I would think the NASA ASAP program would be able to provide quite a bit of data on that.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): That is simply not true. The airlines could also do what every other business does when facing a talent shortage...they could raise wages/benefits in order to attract the pilots they need.
Two issues with that: 1. It will be an issue at the regional level first and they operate on thin margins. Significant raises to pilots would have a major impact on their bottom line. The major airlines are not going to want to increase the cost per flight hour that they pay their regional "partners." 2. It's largely a union environment. Even giving new hire pilots a signing bonus could be considered a violation of the CBA at that airline.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 157): As has been pointed out a few times, no one is suggesting single pilot ops on the current "crop" of commercial pax jets (except GE Aviation and the FAA for cargo flights by ~2020).
It will be interesting to see how much can be retrofitted into existing airframes and what that cost would be.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 162, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4500 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 159): Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138):What engineers don't know, because their is no data, is how many times that 2nd pilot averted an accident, so for you to just state unequivically that computers could replace the 2nd pilot is false, you don't truly know.
I would think the NASA ASAP program would be able to provide quite a bit of data on that.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 160): There is wayyy more that goes on that is undocumented.
ASAP is a fantastic program, though... and it proves how critical it is to have two minds up there.
silentbob, XFSUgimpLB41X is right. What we're talking about with the whole safety issue are not events that would require an ASAP filing, but rather the typical event that happens when there is a small safety detail found by one pilot, who brings it to the attention of the other. For instance you could have one pilot looking left, while the other looks right, and the one to the right says "Hey, traffic close in at two o'clock." The pilot on the left adjusts their descent rate a tiny bit, so there's no conflict. Without the other person however, it might have been much worse. It may be a 172 that forgot to turn on their transponder, or just forgot to squawk altitude. In either case, the TCAS doesn't respond. Would a computer have seen that traffic?
There are thousands of other scenarios that play out every day that don't warrant an ASAP, but that still show how important it is to have two humans up front. I gave up a long time ago trying to convince planemaker that he's too optimistic about the real world possibilities of his technology. Until he can spend several months in a cockpit working actual airline flights and seeing what we see, he just won't get it.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 163, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4441 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 159): It will be interesting to see how much can be retrofitted into existing airframes and what that cost would be.
On late model cargo aircraft the actual cost would be relatively inexpensive since it would be mostly software upgrade on FAA approved avionics. What cargo operators would end up paying will depend upon the number of competing systems are on the market.
Quoting HAL (Reply 162): Would a computer have seen that traffic?
Yes, the "computer" would have seen the traffic... on the other hand both pilots might not have because of "thousands of other scenarios". And that is why "automation" is increasing... because of human limitations and failings. On the other hand, the technology for SP ops will increase safety. The fact that you even use this 172 "scenario" clearly demonstrates that you have limited understanding about "computers", hardware and software, and no knowledge of "sense and avoid" technology that is being currently developed nor what is in the R&D pipeline.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 164, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4410 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 163): Yes, the "computer" would have seen the traffic... on the other hand both pilots might not have because of "thousands of other scenarios". And that is why "automation" is increasing... because of human limitations and failings. On the other hand, the technology for SP ops will increase safety. The fact that you even use this 172 "scenario" clearly demonstrates that you have limited understanding about "computers", hardware and software, and no knowledge of "sense and avoid" technology that is being currently developed nor what is in the R&D pipeline.
And that entire rant clearly demonstrates that you have limited understanding about what pilots actually can do, as well as an vastly overrated sense of what computers and sensor hardware can actually do today. R&D pipeline? Send me a message in about 30 or 40 years when that technology is actually as good as (and approved by) real humans.
Yes, the automation available today is great. Things like TCAS, EGPWS, and FANS can help the pilots do their jobs better and more efficiently. But the monumental gulf between the pilot's job and that of the automation is where I have a real difficulty understanding how you expect those programs and hardware to replace the safety ability of a human brain - that is if it is an increase in safety is what you're after.
Although I suppose that the horrid accident rate for commercial aircraft is a point leading to your case being true... except... oh yeah... commercial aviation is the safest mode of transportation in the world. So why again is the push for single pilot so important? Sorry, I was confused there for a moment.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
Because it is not, it is probably one of the lowest priorities airlines currently have. If its about cost; airlines will find a way around it (low salaries for first officer or even generate revenues by having the first officer pay for gaining flight hours). If its about safety; you can easily understand that no single pilot operation would be safer than dual pilot operations. In short, it is great that it is technologically possible, however it is more an engineers 'wet dream' than a desire of the airlines themselves... Which is the reason why we won't see any single pilot operation on a large scale for decades to come. And about the argument of a 'possible pilot shortage' in the future: there has never been a serious pilot shortage and there never will be one...it is just a sales technique of flight schools.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 166, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4353 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 164): So why again is the push for single pilot so important?
Despite they many repeated attempts to drag the thread off course, the entire point of the thread is about pilot shortage. Either the shortage doesn't exist (in which case much of the thread is moot and we should lock it) or it does, in which case the industry is going to be looking at all possible solutions to the shortage. One obvious potential solution is operating the same flight schedule with less flight crew.
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 165): In short, it is great that it is technologically possible, however it is more an engineers 'wet dream' than a desire of the airlines themselves.
The airlines are concerned about anything and everything that drives cost. Although no longer the top, labour is a very close second for most carriers. If we compound that with the shortage that we're trying to discuss here (implying that labour cost may go up) they're going to care about it even more.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 167, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4335 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 166): One obvious potential solution is operating the same flight schedule with less flight crew.
It's been widely agreed upon that the implementation of reduced crewing is at least 15 years away... yet the shortage is supposed to start in a couple years.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 169, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4329 times:
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 167): It's been widely agreed upon that the implementation of reduced crewing is at least 15 years away... yet the shortage is supposed to start in a couple years.
Sooooooo...... now what?
No idea. That's why I said this about a week ago:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 99): That means, regardless of where you stand on the idea of reduced crewing in any form, the airlines need a strategy to staff at current crewing requirements for many years to come. Those bodies have to come from somewhere.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 170, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4289 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 164): I have a real difficulty understanding how you expect those programs and hardware to replace the safety ability of a human brain
They won't duplicate the "safety ability" of two pilots landing on a taxiway... to give one of many examples of the "safety ability of a human brain".
Quoting HAL (Reply 164): So why again is the push for single pilot so important?
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 171, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4278 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 169): No idea. That's why I said this about a week ago:
Yep... The biggest thing coming is going to be reducing the size of the overbloated regionals and a shift back to mainline.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 170): They won't duplicate the "safety ability" of two pilots landing on a taxiway... to give one of many examples of the "safety ability of a human brain".
Then they can duplicate the safety ability of a fatigued single human brain and a major computer error and kill everyone onboard, right?
The cost of single pilot would be astronomical to gain the redundancy required on 121 operations- as well as many more relief pilots due to the major changes to duty rules that would have to be done. Pilots are not the highest cost in aviation, and the reduced duty period/block hour capability of single pilot nukes that idea from the get go.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 172, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4275 times:
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 171): Then they can duplicate the safety ability of a fatigued single human brain and a major computer error and kill everyone onboard, right?
The Google "robot" cars have driven over 300,000 miles autonomously without an accident... but the one fender bender one had was when a "human brain" was parking it.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 171): The cost of single pilot would be astronomical to gain the redundancy required on 121 operations- as well as many more relief pilots due to the major changes to duty rules that would have to be done. Pilots are not the highest cost in aviation, and the reduced duty period/block hour capability of single pilot nukes that idea from the get go.
Why would the "redundancy" be "astronomical"? What major changes? Pilot pay is not the largest cost item (fuel is followed by labor) but it is a significant cost when all costs are calculated (not just pilot pay but all related costs). Why reduced duty period?
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 53 Reply 173, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4272 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 172): The Google "robot" cars have driven over 300,000 miles autonomously without an accident... but the one fender bender one had was when a "human brain" was parking it.
That accident rate will go up once the Google cars start working their way through freeway traffic, rush-hour stop & go traffic, rainy weather, snowy weather, icy weather, etc, etc.
The whole point of this thread is to answer the OP's question of whether the pilot job market will boom. The answer is yes, because airline growth is continuing, pilots are retiring, and as of now, not many pilots are coming up through the training system. To flood the thread with single-pilot debates is moot, since it won't happen in the career span of new pilots coming up through the ranks today.
Once the airlines realize that going SP won't save them that much money, they'll abandon the effort since the public outcry about safety will overshadow any small financial gain.
Why such a little gain? Because even if you cut out all the co-pilots today, you haven't cut the cost by 50%. It would be more like a third or less, since the remaining pilot would be senior and earn more. Since the ranks of check airmen, instructors, and management pilots come from the more senior pilots, you can't simply cut 50% of the pilots, or you'd end up with far less than 50% of the active pilots. Then realize that the senior pilots have more accrued vacation time (needing more pilots in reserve to cover those days off), and you'll soon see why the airlines won't go for it. Single pilot is not the money saving (or safety increasing) idea some think it would be.
To prizeframe, the OP: Don't rely on the banter here on this thread. Go check out the local flight schools. Ask about how business has been for the past decade. Talk to commuter airlines and regionals. Ask them what the pilot hiring situation is for them. Do your research on pilot retirement rates for the next decade or two. Read about the expansion plans of major airlines across the world. Once you've done all that, you'll come to understand that there will be a strong need for pilots in the near future (if not already, in some cases), and if flying is what you want to do, go for it. Chances are, when you eventually retire, you'll thank yourself for making the decision to choose this career.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3966 posts, RR: 36 Reply 174, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4273 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 172): The Google "robot" cars have driven over 300,000 miles autonomously without an accident... but the one fender bender one had was when a "human brain" was parking it.
Because cars are so similar to airplanes, right? Nope! Large transport freight trains aren't even autonomous. An airplane (as you should know) is an entirely different ballgame.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 172): Why would the "redundancy" be "astronomical"? What major changes? Pilot pay is not the largest cost item (fuel is followed by labor) but it is a significant cost when all costs are calculated (not just pilot pay but all related costs). Why reduced duty period?
New technology is expensive- particularly when it comes to automation levels required to reduce below 2 pilots in a transport airliner. It would be particularly ridiculous for remote piloted UAV to even be discussed.
Reduced duty period because duty periods are built around 2 pilot operations- it would likely be changed to similar to what railroads use which is half that of air carrier operations. That would require the need for more augments, and tada... no savings in staffing or pay. Heck, FedEx should be at the front runner of this with doing all freight, but they are still running around with a pile of aircraft that still require flight engineers.
One of the major point of difference that we are having is because you are looking at it from an engineer's perspective. I'm looking at it from the "trigger" end- the actual operation. I see every day the actual implications of things, whereas you look at the design origination of things. I see how slow things go with the FAA, have flown single pilot for thousands of hours, and understand intimately air carrier operations.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 175, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4205 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 173): That accident rate will go up once the Google cars start working their way through freeway traffic, rush-hour stop & go traffic, rainy weather, snowy weather, icy weather, etc, etc.
Unfortunately, your statement illustrates how little you know about this subject (just as your 172 hypothetical also does). It well known that Google's cars have already driven "through freeway traffic, rush-hour stop & go traffic". And if you understood how the Google cars work then you would know that performance in adverse weather is far superior to "human brains".
Quoting HAL (Reply 173): To flood the thread with single-pilot debates is moot, since it won't happen in the career span of new pilots coming up through the ranks today.
If they expect to be flying in 15 years they certainly will. In fact, civilian UAV's will start to take away pilot jobs in a couple of years.
As an aside, Redbird has been able to reduce the number of actual flight hours required for students to complete their PPL... which results in fewer flight hours for instructors. Over the next couple of years we'll see the FAA increase the number of simulator hours further reducing the flight hours of instructors.
Quoting HAL (Reply 173): Once the airlines realize that going SP won't save them that much money, they'll abandon the effort since the public outcry about safety will overshadow any small financial gain.
No public outcry about safety... except perhaps from the older members of society who will still be able to book a 2 crew flight if they want (but for a limited time, naturally. )
Quoting HAL (Reply 173): Single pilot is not the money saving (or safety increasing) idea some think it would be.
It absolutely is and looking at some of the almost ridiculous cost cutting measures that airlines have undertaken it should be abundantly obvious. And it it will be much safer... "human brains" are not getting smarter nor any more capable... the exact opposite of IT systems which may surpass "human brains" between 2030 and 2040 - and we don't need anywhere close to AGI for single pilot pax ops.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 174): Because cars are so similar to airplanes, right? Nope!
You're right... automating driving is far more difficult then airplanes.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 174): Large transport freight trains aren't even autonomous.
Actually, they have some automated freight trains in Australia.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 174): New technology is expensive- particularly when it comes to automation levels required to reduce below 2 pilots in a transport airliner.
No it isn't. For example, that is why the makers of the iPad and iPhone are installing 1 million robots to replace one of the cheapest labor forces in the world.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 174): One of the major point of difference that we are having is because you are looking at it from an engineer's perspective.
I'm not just looking at it from an engineer's perspective. I've been flying since high school and have worked in aviation all my life from slinging bags in college to working in flight with test pilots. But that is besides the point. If one cares to scratch the surface there is lots of information available about automation technology in aviation and the inescapable conclusion is that we'll have SP ops.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 174): I see every day the actual implications of things, whereas you look at the design origination of things. I see how slow things go with the FAA, have flown single pilot for thousands of hours, and understand intimately air carrier operations.
Yes... but you seeing things as they are now. In much less than 15 years automation will be so pervasive in aviation via military and civil UAV's (let alone in everyday life) that it won't be an issue for the FAA.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
PH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 176, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4178 times:
' In fact, civilian UAV's will start to take away pilot jobs in a couple of years. '
Yes indeed, just like we would definitely have a personal flying saucer in 2012 when you would ask engineers in 1960. Again this shows your inability to take economic viability into account, which undoubtedly will make you reply that I and everyone else has absolutely no understanding of technology and its advancement.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 177, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4166 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 138): What engineers don't know, because their is no data, is how many times that 2nd pilot averted an accident, so for you to just state unequivically that computers could replace the 2nd pilot is false, you don't truly know.
In addition to the autonomous operation, I advocate a 2nd pilot on the ground.
What is ALREADY KNOWN is that the developing UAVs sans a test pilot is safer (fewer near misses) than with an 'optional pilot.' I'm going to go into this as its something worth discussing on this thread. Right now there are two ways to get a UAV through flight testing.
The old way: Have a human pilot ("optional pilot") do initial flying until the autonomous has been proven.
The new way, started with the Global Hawk: All autonomous flying. No provisions to 'bolt on' a cockpit.
The alter method is having *far* fewer problems, risks, and expenses than the first. Bids for the first method are no longer being accepted as pure autonomous flying is that much safer. The military is also getting fed up with chase planes (piloted) for UAVs in commercial airspace as there have already been demonstrations that the UAV is safe on its own.
Now, I'm not suggesting get rid of both pilots, but we aren't that far from single pilot operations today. I think Embraer has it right to start with a small (less controversial) plane. Without getting rid of the weight, space, and costs of a 2nd pilot they won't ever be able to sell a new 50-seat RJ.
Seriously, the next generation of subsystems will be automated anyway. e.g., the anti-icing. Humans cannot sense the need for the anti-icing as well as the computer. Instead of having the pilot react to a notice the anti-icing is required, the workload will be reduced.
However, some of this will require GPS based ATC to give the computer/pilot even better situational awareness. We're on that path anyway...
Quoting planemaker (Reply 175): that is why the makers of the iPad and iPhone are installing 1 million robots to replace one of the cheapest labor forces in the world.
My brother just switched from microchip testing to robots as that is where the money is. Anyone who thinks automation is slowing down will be betting on the wrong horse.
It also amazes me in this discussion how everyone is ignoring the option of a 2nd pilot on the ground helping the airborne pilot. In UAVs they now fly Afghanistan flights with US located pilots. Pilots who work known set shifts with no hotel or other travel costs. Its a pure commuting 'desk job.'
UAVs have progressed tremendously in their 'get home when damaged' capabilities in just the last 5 years. Their ability to diagnose and react to a problem has improved tremendously. The 'bottleneck' is to have *someone* qualify the available faster processors for aerospace utilization. In my opinion, the 8-core processors coming out for tablets next year will be perfect for UAV automation and this is what commercial operators will inherit.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 175): And if you understood how the Google cars work then you would know that performance in adverse weather is far superior to "human brains".
And to the nay sayers, just look at what is being developed for UAVs. In a decade, non-weapons or black project related stuff will all be available in the commercial sector.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 175): Redbird has been able to reduce the number of actual flight hours required for students to complete their PPL... which results in fewer flight hours for instructors. Over the next couple of years we'll see the FAA increase the number of simulator hours further reducing the flight hours of instructors.
Interesting... I see the number of flight hours plumiting with simulators. I wouldn't be surprised to find out a flight school figures out how to award the ATP with over half the hours in a simulator. Far more effective to have a syllabubs of known contingencies tested. Make them random so that the student pilot doesn't know what they are getting into.
Why would there be? There will still be a pilot up front. If there is an on the ground backup, I would expect insurance rates to be cheaper for that option than a 2nd flying pilot.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 171): The biggest thing coming is going to be reducing the size of the overbloated regionals and a shift back to mainline.
While there will be some shift to mainline, it will be more so to larger regionals.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 178, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4148 times:
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 176): Yes indeed, just like we would definitely have a personal flying saucer in 2012 when you would ask engineers in 1960. Again this shows your inability to take economic viability into account, which undoubtedly will make you reply that I and everyone else has absolutely no understanding of technology and its advancement.
The facts are that you do have a very limited understanding of technology and its advancement.. your replies are proof to that. The FAA has a statutory obligation via Congressional legislation to permit UAVs in commercial airspace by 2015. And the applications of unmanned aircraft ready to go gov and biz include police, Homeland Security, highway and traffic monitoring, weather, land use, agriculture, news, surveying - geology, forests, marine, power lines, pipelines, aerial photography, etc, etc, etc. The uses a many varied and they don't need a pilot.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 177): Their ability to diagnose and react to a problem has improved tremendously. The 'bottleneck' is to have *someone* qualify the available faster processors for aerospace utilization. In my opinion, the 8-core processors coming out for tablets next year will be perfect for UAV automation and this is what commercial operators will inherit.
Even though it will go over the head of the techno luddites on this thread, Intel recently released a 48-core chip for testing for tablets and cell phones that could be commercially available within 5 years. And Adeptiva has a 64-core with a target selling price of... $100. They also have a design for a 1,000-core chip in a couple of years and a roadmap for a 16k-core chip by 2022. Pretty soon we'll all be walking around with a "Watson" on our cell phone.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 177): And to the nay sayers, just look at what is being developed for UAVs. In a decade, non-weapons or black project related stuff will all be available in the commercial sector.
The US has already used unmanned K-Max's to re-supply in Afghanistan. Andd Israel is going to be testing UAV's for battlefield medevacs. With the pace of development if is feasible to for trans-oceanic UAV commercial cargo ops operating from coastal strips within 5-10 years.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 177): I wouldn't be surprised to find out a flight school figures out how to award the ATP with over half the hours in a simulator. Far more effective to have a syllabubs of known contingencies tested.
Even without increasing sim time allowance, there is just the efficiency aspect of learning on a sim. A lot of "hobbs time" (flight time) is chewed up in non-essential activity for a specific lesson in a less than perfect teaching platform. And then there is the increasing fidelity of low cost sims like Redbird's that should allow what you suggest in the near future.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 177): Why would there be? There will still be a pilot up front. If there is an on the ground backup, I would expect insurance rates to be cheaper for that option than a 2nd flying pilot.
Not only will there be a "2nd pilot" at the airlines' op center, but there will be several layers of redundancy.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
PH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 179, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4105 times:
'The facts are that you do have a very limited understanding of technology and its advancement.. your replies are proof to that.'
As do you regarding economic viability, which you have proven several times as well. Same reason why you will be flying a 2 pilot operated 737 max or a320 neo as a pax over 25 years from now (and well beyond )
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, RR: 34 Reply 180, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4033 times:
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 179): As do you regarding economic viability, which you have proven several times as well.
The "economic viability" is exceedingly obvious... in fact, is should have been far easier for you to comprehend than IT because it is just basic math.
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 179): Same reason why you will be flying a 2 pilot operated 737 max or a320 neo as a pax over 25 years from now
Your post has absolutely no relevance since I have posted many times that SP will not be on legacy pax aircraft but will begin with all-new RJs in ~15 years.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19725 posts, RR: 56 Reply 181, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4020 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 177): I think Embraer has it right to start with a small (less controversial) plane.
From a controversy standpoint perhaps. But from an operational standpoint, those planes fly the routes that have the most workload, and thus are least suited to introduce single-pilot.
The hardest flights I fly are the quick 20 mile reposition legs - there's still the normal amount of things to do, but almost no time to do it in. Fortunately, we have two pilots to split the workload (and that's in an airplane that is certified for single-pilot). Otherwise, I'm not sure how it would get done properly. Obviously the airlines won't be flying legs that short, but even 30 or 40 minute flights can get busy if there are lots of external pressures (traffic, weather, etc.).
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 182, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 181): From a controversy standpoint perhaps. But from an operational standpoint, those planes fly the routes that have the most workload, and thus are least suited to introduce single-pilot.
There are two sides to that coin...one is that you're sometimes better off tackling the hardest challenge first. I think we can all admit that if (IF!) you could get single pilot ops working on short-haul high-frequency RJ routes, it would be much easier to integrated onto the longer-haul stuff. There's also the argument that, given the technical/operational/safety hurdles that any SP ops would have to meet, the potential operational benefits are much high on short RJ routes precisely because the current workload is so high. SP is totally impossible without offloading a significant amount of work from the pilots than we currently have today so there is an argument that it makes sense to target those operations where the pilots have the worst time.
PH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 183, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4015 times:
'Your post has absolutely no relevance since I have posted many times that SP will not be on legacy pax aircraft but will begin with all-new RJs in ~15 years.'
Really? Do you remember that only two years ago, in a similar thread, you were advocating that 787's in 2025 would be delivered and operated single pilot? Thats is only 13 years from now and certainly a legacy pax aircraft.
'The "economic viability" is exceedingly obvious... in fact, is should have been far easier for you to comprehend than IT because it is just basic math.'
No it is not, you forget again and again that you are seeing a problem (expensive first officers), that in most cases isn't a problem in the real world. Any idea how much a F/O is earning on a regional jet? Did you ever hear of first officers who have to pay to accumalate flight hours and after 500 hours are replaced by new ones who are paying again to fly 500 hours, ie first officers making the airline money instead of costing the airline money. Any idea what would happen to the pay of the captain if he was solely responsible for the aircraft (ie operating single pilot).
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 184, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3990 times:
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 183): No it is not, you forget again and again that you are seeing a problem (expensive first officers), that in most cases isn't a problem in the real world.
The recent bankrupcies of several legacy carriers in the US can be traced directly to overly generous labour packages...not just to pilots, but pilots are certainly included, that were negotiated in the late 90s. The future viability of some recent mergers (and even some of the stable LCC's) is in doubt due to steadily rising labour costs.
PH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 185, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3982 times:
'It's a *huge* problem in the real world.'
Unfortunately, bankruptcies have more to do with incompetent management, than with labour costs. There are several airlines that would not make any money even if all their pilots would fly for free. If all airlines would move to single pilot operated aircraft it would change absolutely nothing regarding their comparative cost base and we would still see bankruptcies.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 428 posts, RR: 0 Reply 186, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3972 times:
I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but here's a question for those who advocate single-pilot ops.
As I've always understood it, from a career standpoint, an important part of the "first officer phase" (yes, I understand that this "phase" is a significant part of, and sometimes the entirety of, one's career, but I don't know of a better way to word it) is that it acts as sort of an apprenticeship period. Certainly, I have yet to hear of anyone who started their career as a captain, and I would argue that a great deal of valuable experience is gathered while working as a first officer with a captain who is senior to you.
This may not be an issue in the first 10 to 15 years of single-pilot ops since anyone who'd be considered for the spot in this timeframe would have been working as a captain already, but what about after that, as those captains retire and there isn't anyone with that experience to replace them? How will people get the experience that is now gotten with years of flying? While simulator time certainly helps, I don't think that can fully replace this (and who would pay for it in any event?), and while I know that completely autonomous commercial airliners are coming, I don't think it's going to happen that quickly, nor should it.
When I was younger, I studied aviation accidents rather intensively (I figured that it would be beneficial to try to learn from whatever mistakes were made), and one of the lessons I learned from that is that one has to be prepared for the unexpected to the best extent possible. I know that true artificial intelligence is going to come sooner or later, but until it does, given that one can only program a computer to expect the expected it seems to me that true autonomy shouldn't happen before that point. And, even when it is technologically possible, in my very strong opinion, we as a society should tread VERY carefully through those waters...
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2561 posts, RR: 8 Reply 187, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3943 times:
To me having two crew up front is entirely safety. One pilot makes sense to a bean counter who has never operated an airplane in a busy or stressful environment, but I can tell you from personal experience that having another pilot, no matter which seat they're in to discuss the situation, options, to offer insight, to watch out for you and for you to watch out for makes the operation safer in a way that cannot be measured.
Computers are a fantastic aid to pilots, but they should only ever posses that capability, to be an aid. The idea that you can replace a human being at the pointy end, who can process, analyze and make decisions is not something that can be fixed by having a super smart computer with the latest whiz-bang bells and whistles. That a single pilot airliner can be even remotely as safe as a two crew environment is seemingly the conjuration of engineers and financial planners who likely lack the real world experience of operating an airliner. Ask Capt. Sullenberger and FO Skiles about these last two points, or any number of pilots who had to step in when automation failed. To suggest that a robot car is akin to what it would take to operate an unmanned or one manned aircraft is an apples and oranges comparison. We aren't talking about automating systems in the same way that made the standard 3 crew airliner of the 60's and 70's go down to 2, but asking a piece of machinery to take over the entirety that is the operation of the airplane with a single human serving as a watch-dog with no system of checks and balances for the decision making process.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 163): Yes, the "computer" would have seen the traffic... on the other hand both pilots might not have because of "thousands of other scenarios".
Quoting HAL (Reply 164): Yes, the automation available today is great. Things like TCAS, EGPWS, and FANS can help the pilots do their jobs better and more efficiently. But the monumental gulf between the pilot's job and that of the automation is where I have a real difficulty understanding how you expect those programs and hardware to replace the safety ability of a human brain - that is if it is an increase in safety is what you're after.
This. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a false indication from TCAS, EGWPS, etc or worse, no indication when there was a traffic conflict, terrain, etc. Technology isn't perfect, and betting your life on it, and only it to spare you is a not a gamble I'd take.
Quoting PH-BFA (Reply 165): If its about safety; you can easily understand that no single pilot operation would be safer than dual pilot operations.
You cannot say for certain that replacing one pilot with technology would increase safety. Advances in technology have made aviation safer because they better enable the humans up front to complete the operation safely. Technology is a tool, not the end all be all solution.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 175): I'm not just looking at it from an engineer's perspective. I've been flying since high school and have worked in aviation all my life from slinging bags in college to working in flight with test pilots. But that is besides the point. If one cares to scratch the surface there is lots of information available about automation technology in aviation and the inescapable conclusion is that we'll have SP ops.
So flying non professionally and riding with test pilots gives you better insight than those of us who fly for a living?
To answer the OP:
A boom? Doubtful. I think we'll see slow, and steady hiring but not a true boom.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 428 posts, RR: 0 Reply 188, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3930 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 187): That a single pilot airliner can be even remotely as safe as a two crew environment is seemingly the conjuration of engineers and financial planners who likely lack the real world experience of operating an airliner. Ask Capt. Sullenberger and FO Skiles about these last two points, or any number of pilots who had to step in when automation failed. To suggest that a robot car is akin to what it would take to operate an unmanned or one manned aircraft is an apples and oranges comparison.
THANK YOU...couldn't have worded it better myself, even though I tried.
I hate to say this, but part of me wonders if airline safety has gotten so good that some are starting to forget some of the lessons that took so much blood to learn over the years?
pvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 549 posts, RR: 0 Reply 189, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3917 times:
As long as airliners can't safely fly their whole route and land automatically without pilot doing something at some point there won't be commercial airliner with single pilot, that's for sure. Every year there are many cases of pilots getting incapacitated, with single pilot operations that would probably mean many more crashes then.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 190, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3893 times:
I'm going to make a plea, again, for this thread to get back on target. Whatever you think about SP ops, any pending pilot shortage will occur before SP ops are a reality so both problems will need to be dealt with independently.
There is an appauling amount of bad statements being made about single pilots ops here and I'm personally having a heck of a time resisting responding but I'm trying to respect the OP who asked a perfectly good question that a whole lot of people seem to want to avoid answering.
There are good threads on a.net already about single pilot ops...start one back up or open a new one.
Now does anyone want to talk about how we're going to train pilots in an environment where nobody wants to work for a regional and the regional's can't afford to pay more?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10697 posts, RR: 100 Reply 191, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3888 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 178): Even though it will go over the head of the techno luddites on this thread, Intel recently released a 48-core chip for testing for tablets and cell phones that could be commercially available within 5 years.
The issue of aircraft is cooling (as the computers must work with a loss of cabin pressure). So I'm more excited about the multi-core tablet processors. However, you make a good point, the power will only improve. We're in what should prove to be the 5 fastest years of chip manufacturing improvement (after what was a relatively slower time, admittedly).
Quoting planemaker (Reply 178): Andd Israel is going to be testing UAV's for battlefield medevacs. With the pace of development if is feasible to for trans-oceanic UAV commercial cargo ops operating from coastal strips within 5-10 years.
Autonomous medvac makes sense and is a far more complex problem than commercial flight in many ways. I agree that cargo is an optoin.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 178): Even without increasing sim time allowance, there is just the efficiency aspect of learning on a sim. A lot of "hobbs time" (flight time) is chewed up in non-essential activity for a specific lesson in a less than perfect teaching platform. And then there is the increasing fidelity of low cost sims like Redbird's that should allow what you suggest in the near future.
We are in agreement. Sim time has so many advantageous to implement a structured program.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 178): Not only will there be a "2nd pilot" at the airlines' op center, but there will be several layers of redundancy.
And that is being ignored by those who just want a 2nd flying job. There will be a pilot job, so the pipeline will remain stuffed. Its just going to be a team of ground based pilots who quickly hop from flight to flight instead of standing there saying 'bye bye' to passengers.
Quoting Mir (Reply 181): But from an operational standpoint, those planes fly the routes that have the most workload, and thus are least suited to introduce single-pilot.
Then they are the most suited to having the 2nd pilot well rested and on the ground.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 187): You cannot say for certain that replacing one pilot with technology would increase safety.
With the redundancy on the ground, its already true of military flight ops. The flying 2nd pilot simply does not have the situational awareness modern GPC based control centers offer. Even better for short ops, the 2nd pilot could 'ride along' on flight after flight while the real plane is offloading and re-loading. Pay based on work hours instead of flight hours.
Also, having the 2nd pilot ground based *without travel* (beyond local commuting) means less fatigued backup. In the small jet sector, that is worth far more than a 2nd body on board.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 187): Computers are a fantastic aid to pilots, but they should only ever posses that capability, to be an aid.
They are far beyond that already. As I noted before, UAVs that *never* have a pilot onboard have a superior record to 'optionally piloted' UAVs that later on remove the pilot station. This has been true since the global hawk. It isn't as if there wouldn't be a 2nd pilot, that pilot would just be ground based with onboard autonomous computers as the added layer of backup.
There will be autonomous backup on future airliners. Insurance is certain to demand that. We're getting there with the level of automation of the latest planes. By taking much of the workload and putting it onto a ground crew who has superior work shifts and rest times, it improves safety far more than a commuting pilot.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 187): but asking a piece of machinery to take over the entirety that is the operation of the airplane with a single human serving as a watch-dog with no system of checks and balances for the decision making process.
Already done for UAVs with *all* pilots ground based.
Have you done autonomous waypoint flying with collision avoidance? Its possible to plan (and if requried, replan) a route far more effectively and efficiently than before. The issue is translating that to a human pilot. The computer? Its an upload.
Humans will be offloaded anyway. It is just safer.
As to 'checks and balances,' the goal is to have it standardized to a point humans just do not want to follow. Proper process and proceedures has done more for aviation safety than anything over the last 50 years. By having it in software, it is 'hard coded' so that it won't be bypassed. Commercial aircraft are now safest when the most dangerous aspects of flight are automated: takeoff and landing. Heck soon initial trials of carrier takeoff and landing by a large UAV (UCAS-D) will start.
That is the work driving safety. Airport relative navigation with collision avoidance is far simpler than carrier relative navigation with a far more complex flight operations. (e.g., the "Hawking" tanker on standby to swoop in and refuel a plane that missed the arrested landed and needs fuel NOW!).
Quoting warden145 (Reply 188): I hate to say this, but part of me wonders if airline safety has gotten so good that some are starting to forget some of the lessons that took so much blood to learn over the years?
Safety is being implemented in a new and far more rigorous way.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 187): So flying non professionally and riding with test pilots gives you better insight than those of us who fly for a living?
You are involved with the day to day operations of doing your job. Most people in that situation do not look to the future to see how it could be done better. When I started Pratt and saw one machinest per machine, my first thought is "those parts won't be as precise as robot manufactured parts" and that is why much of that work is now outsourced. I'm not advocating zero pilots for commercial. But I think you are looking at it from employment security and not the big safety picture:
If you want piloting skill, that is a carrier landing. An operation that will be demonstrated autonomously soon.
“It’s probably what every group of people who ever had their job automated went through,” says Missy Cummings, a Navy fighter pilot who became an MIT professor and studies how humans and UAVs work together. “The pilot has that image as sort of the last bastion of derring-do, and perceives [piloting] skills as irreplaceable. We have an emotional attachment to the idea of being a pilot that is very hard to lose.”
The military is not going to fund another fighter or attack plane after the JSF that is piloted. (Only transports.) Heck, half the P-3 Orion replacement demand will be met by UAVs. That means the bulk of R&D dollars is going to go towards autonomous aircraft.
And Planemaker's points on processor power is an important one. The 777 in all its might flies on a 486! The backup is a 68040. Who would have the patience to have that low power of a computer as their laptop or tablet anymore?!? Due to low power needs, the PowerPC7410 is the most common processor in the *latest* aircraft. Yes, a circa 2001 processor is the latest as the desktop and workstation processors then went to their 100W or more of power consumption (which is not compatible with high altitude loss of cabin pressure recovery scenariors). But now there are multiple new low power processors hitting the market that offer far more computational power in a low cooling environment (for they were designed to work in sealed tablets/cellphones). Since these processors are also going to be used in servers, I see what aerospace needs being delivered next year to start the R&D.
What we will see over the next 5 years isn't going to be a small jump in computational capability. That is the biggest hold back as the software has already been brought up through the TRL levels in various demonstrators (usually an older business jet reconfigured for autonomous operation with two pilots for backup). But that has been with computers that required high levels of cooling (e.g., one aircraft had DEC Alphas! Another had Intel processors... Talk about hard to cool processors...)
The enabling technology is falling into place. It isn't a question of if, but when. Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed, EADS, the Israeli's, and others have most of the software.
What are the main CPUs in the 787? The 777 is used as the lesson in designing aircraft for fail safe operation so I know that architecture well. But what is powering the 787?
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 428 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3882 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 190): I'm going to make a plea, again, for this thread to get back on target. Whatever you think about SP ops, any pending pilot shortage will occur before SP ops are a reality so both problems will need to be dealt with independently.
My apologies for letting emotion overcome my better judgement and participating in that off-shoot; I'll keep my trap shut from here on out.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 193, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
Anyone out there know the financials of the regionals in depth? I'm trying to figure out, IF the notional pilot shortage occurs, what possible way there is out of it. If regional XYZ goes to hire 10 pilots and can't get enough applications, what are their options? As I understand their profit margins, paying more really isn't in the cards. What levers do they have? 1500 hours + training is a hell of a bill to take on, the military isn't filling the pipeline like it used to, and even qualified pilots are avoiding the industry in some spaces because the pay/lifestyle combo just doesn't work.
If you're a flight school, how do you make a credible case to any would-be pilot that they'll ever cover the expense in future earnings? If you're a regional, what do you offer that you've actually got available to give to induce people to work for you that aren't working for you now?
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 194, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3793 times:
I think just about everyone on here would agree that AT SOME POINT in the future, we will see commercial airliners in a normal (non-experimental) SP or even pilotless operation.
I think the part where we are diverging is the timeframe. I think those of us who have ever tried to work with the FAA to change the color of the uniform tie, or chang the font of a manual look at your 15 year prediction and just we have been working on essentially domestic CPDLC for how many decades now? And yet we re still talking to Salt Lake City in much the same way they did in the 60's.
The easier position to elimiate if we want to talk about eliminating positions is the dipatcher. In the old days, somebody had to sit next to the teletype and later the fax machine to relay information to pilots is gone. The technology is there now, for planes to get real time weather updates via satellite anywhere in the world. Flight planning software has progressed the point that it could be automated 100%. All of this has existed for awhile...and yet all of the major airlines have rooms as big as Best Buys full of dispatchers...
ual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1478 posts, RR: 5 Reply 195, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3791 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 175):
If they expect to be flying in 15 years they certainly will. In fact, civilian UAV's will start to take away pilot jobs in a couple of years.
As an aside, Redbird has been able to reduce the number of actual flight hours required for students to complete their PPL... which results in fewer flight hours for instructors. Over the next couple of years we'll see the FAA increase the number of simulator hours further reducing the flight hours of instructors.
Ive instructed in Redbirds sims and they are good for instrument training and VFR cross-country "dead reckoning" training only. Outside of that they suck. The controls are not even close to the real aircraft.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 175):
I'm not just looking at it from an engineer's perspective. I've been flying since high school and have worked in aviation all my life from slinging bags in college to working in flight with test pilots. But that is besides the point. If one cares to scratch the surface there is lots of information available about automation technology in aviation and the inescapable conclusion is that we'll have SP ops.
Doubt it for airliners.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 177):
Now, I'm not suggesting get rid of both pilots, but we aren't that far from single pilot operations today. I think Embraer has it right to start with a small (less controversial) plane. Without getting rid of the weight, space, and costs of a 2nd pilot they won't ever be able to sell a new 50-seat RJ.
Seriously, the next generation of subsystems will be automated anyway. e.g., the anti-icing. Humans cannot sense the need for the anti-icing as well as the computer. Instead of having the pilot react to a notice the anti-icing is required, the workload will be reduced.
However, some of this will require GPS based ATC to give the computer/pilot even better situational awareness. We're on that path anyway...
The problem with 50 seaters is not crew costs. Its fuel. They are dead and not coming back.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Nov 2012, 8 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1341 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Oct 2012, 90 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1646 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Jun 2004, 175 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 98 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 410 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5488 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1605 posts, 
And the military is paying a fortune for UAV's in commercial airspace. That is the enabling technology. IMHO, as small cities are cut off in the current upgauging, there will be enough noise to allow single cockpits, but for smaller planes (50 seats or less). 
Just look at how much people belly ache about FR... to the point of making it the largest short haul carrier in Europe with the highest market cap! 
From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7729 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 549 posts, 
Safety is being implemented in a new and far more rigorous way.