Page 3 of 4

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:29 pm
by Bluewho
7BOEING7 wrote:
Anybody thinking this (single pilot) can't possibly happen is like the proverbial ostrich -- sticking their head in the sand.

Even today after takeoff on a "normal" flight the only actions required by the pilot is raising and lowering the gear and flaps, setting climb and descent altitudes, setting approach information and speeds, selecting autobrakes and reverse thrust. With a little more automation and uplink capability most of this could be done with no pilot action what so ever. It will come in little bits and pieces until takeoff is automated, then its all over.

Single pilot monitors auto takeoff, gear retracts automatically when airborne, flaps retract automatically as speed increases, airplane flies FMS provided vertical and lateral profile, FMS accepts ATC uplinked modifications automatically, descent profile including altitudes, landing speeds and autobrake setting is uplinked, gear and flaps are extended automatically and the airplane makes an automatic landing, braking as necessary to clear at the ATC selected turn off. Much of this can be done already.



But again you better redesign the whole ATC system. There is this view on here that everything is done like a movie script. It’s not. You also forgot setting the navigation points, or deviations for weather or a bunch of other things. Look when you “tech” guys vastly change the ATC environment I work in I’ll buy all of this. Uplink this up link that. Funny especially when I just had to do my own landing numbers and data because wait for it the uplink didn’t work. But this argument goes around and around because the tech gods will always say that wouldn’t happen because of this this and this. Fired up the new cpdlc the other day waited waited waited, picked up that old technology radio to call clearance oh yeah it’s down and we are having a hard time with sending clearances are you ready to copy? Sure I used even older technology the pen to write it down. But yes I know that would never happen. I have seen pilots do weird thing and I have certainly seen my airplane do some weird stuff.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:33 pm
by Bluewho
FluidFlow wrote:
impilot wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Self-flying aircraft will be the norm way faster than expected. It is the regulation that hold it back, not the technology.

Aircraft are an order of magnitude further in automation than cars are and just the fact that aircraft operate in 3D makes it easier to automate than in 2D. There is so much less unexpected happening in the air than on the ground.

The only thing that is a problem right now is what happens when the automation fails (like MCAS) but redundancy and ground control will reduce that risk a lot in the future

The military is already there with UAVs and when the first unmanned fighter jets are launched, it will take no more than 10 years until the civil aviation will be autonomous during flight and will not need a pilot on board anymore.

First it will be that ATC will take control during take-off and landing and the rest will be handled by autopilot, then auto landing and auto take-off will take over and ATC will only be there if automation fails.

Even interrupted communication will be no problem as the automation will have failure modes that will bring the aircraft immediately to the next airport if something unusual happens. Predictive computing will also be able to detect sensor failures and unusual flight conditions.


Do you know how many unmanned aircraft the US military has crashed due to failures/lost link/hack jobs? And for every unmanned aircraft that is flying in the military, do you know how many people are working to keep it up?

Also, you realize we will be flying manned fighters for many more decades, right? And an unmanned fighter has already flown https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ghter-jet/ So does that mean you give it 10 years before civil aviation will be autonomous?

Pilots aren't going away anytime soon in the military or the airlines.


Hundreds of military aircrafts with jet engines crashed before the first jet engine was mounted on a civil aircraft.

Dozens of military aircraft with FBW controls crashed before the first civil aircraft hat an all FBW system.

And the list goes on. Back at that time most people dismissed that this technology it will be standard for general aviation and it took only a couple of years and it was normal. The same will be with autonomous flying.
Satellite communication and satellite internet coverage will increase quickly, the globe will be triple redundant covered by 2030. The technology will become cheaper and more accessible, there is nothing stopping that while on the other end the training and education of (military) pilots becomes more and more expensive. You cannot stop the technology.

The coachman also didn’t thought the train and the car will make their job redundant but it happened. Next are taxi drivers and train drivers and shortly after them it will be the pilots.

I am 43 years old now and I am pretty sure when I am 83 I will fly on an aircraft without a pilot.



Good plan keep getting rid of jobs. Let’s see all drivers, pilots and train engineers out on the street. I’m sure we can all learn to code. This is a much bigger issue that we are not looking at. Once AI gets to that level your job might be next. As a society we need to talk NOW about this.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:39 pm
by GatorClark
BoeingGuy wrote:
GatorClark wrote:
3 reasons why this is a bad idea:
1. Silk Air 185
2. Germanwings 9525
3. EgyptAir 990

And just in case you dispute any of these:
Royal Air Maroc 630.


What if the second pilot who is no longer in the flight deck is the one who would have crashed the airplane? Then it’s a really good idea.

Actually there aren’t great examples because the airplanes crashed anyway. I think there was a B6 incident where the non-disturbed pilot locked the bad one out and took control and made an emergency landing. That’s a good example of your point.


I can agree with this but I still feel comfortable with more than one alert able-bodied pilot in the cockpit.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:47 pm
by WorldFlier
Aesma wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
mikejepp wrote:
Heres what I don't get about this....

If a plane is designed to fly with one pilot, it has to be designed to fly with none. Because that pilot "system" has too high of a failure rate to operate without a backup.

And if a plane can fly with none, why would it be designed to fly with one? An unmanned airplane would be a huge cost savings... much more than any gain you could get from justifications for keeping a pilot up there at all.


I believe we are done here. Either you need a backup or you don't need a single person. The risk of failure is too high because if there's an issue with the pilot, what are the odds that there isn't an issue with the ground link?

Too high.


The default is the plane flies itself. With necessary redundant computers, using separate software stacks so that a bug can't affect all the computers, etc.

The pilot is there as a backup, basically to reassure passengers.

Ground link's only purpose is for when the pilot is sabotaging the flight, to override him/her.

So it's true, there would be no need for any pilot.


If the ground link can override the pilot, so can a hacker...and Commercial airplanes surely won't have the same level of security as a military drone.

That is definitely not something you want. The cost "savings" will be outweighed by R&D and the first system failure where ISIS (or a state actor pretending to be ISIS) takes over an airplane via satellite uplink...

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:48 pm
by FluidFlow
Bluewho wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
impilot wrote:

Do you know how many unmanned aircraft the US military has crashed due to failures/lost link/hack jobs? And for every unmanned aircraft that is flying in the military, do you know how many people are working to keep it up?

Also, you realize we will be flying manned fighters for many more decades, right? And an unmanned fighter has already flown https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ghter-jet/ So does that mean you give it 10 years before civil aviation will be autonomous?

Pilots aren't going away anytime soon in the military or the airlines.


Hundreds of military aircrafts with jet engines crashed before the first jet engine was mounted on a civil aircraft.

Dozens of military aircraft with FBW controls crashed before the first civil aircraft hat an all FBW system.

And the list goes on. Back at that time most people dismissed that this technology it will be standard for general aviation and it took only a couple of years and it was normal. The same will be with autonomous flying.
Satellite communication and satellite internet coverage will increase quickly, the globe will be triple redundant covered by 2030. The technology will become cheaper and more accessible, there is nothing stopping that while on the other end the training and education of (military) pilots becomes more and more expensive. You cannot stop the technology.

The coachman also didn’t thought the train and the car will make their job redundant but it happened. Next are taxi drivers and train drivers and shortly after them it will be the pilots.

I am 43 years old now and I am pretty sure when I am 83 I will fly on an aircraft without a pilot.



Good plan keep getting rid of jobs. Let’s see all drivers, pilots and train engineers out on the street. I’m sure we can all learn to code. This is a much bigger issue that we are not looking at. Once AI gets to that level your job might be next. As a society we need to talk NOW about this.


Don't worry most people will not directly lose their job. This are not easy jobs in industries were change happens over night like manufacturing. You also cannot outsource a train engineer. But what will happen is, that people get retired and the open position will vanish. I spoke to people about this and saw plans. Unions and social thoughts but also economic reasons will prevent over night mass lay offs. It will trickle slowly. One line will be automated, then the other and so on. And the same will happen for airlines, not all aircraft will be retired and replaced with autonomous ones, it will happen step by step and the staff will just be retired.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:56 pm
by texl1649
Pretty sure Boeing won't jump right into deploying it this way out of the gate on the pax 797. Especially if it's offered to airlines soon, given their, ahem, black eye over safety systems/training/deployment on the max.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:09 pm
by twaconnie
Seabear wrote:
Why not get rid of flight attendants at the same time? After all, 99.999% of the time they're nothing more than glorified cocktail waitresses. Just set up a vending machine in the back. Just sayin'.

/s

I'm sure Ryanair likes your idea,to go along with selling standing room. :lol:

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:15 pm
by Elementalism
VSMUT wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

You hit the nail on the head. The one-pilot concept is a fallacy.



No, technology really isn't anywhere close to autonomous flight. It would be a stretch just to make aircraft fly autonomously under the best of conditions, completely impossible in more realistic conditions or with a systems failure thrown in. That isn't even including the inadequate ground facilities in many parts of the world. Autonomous flight would require a new way to communicate between controllers and aircraft, simple VHF sets no longer being up to the task.


The last flight refresher course my father went to last summer discussed automated cockpits and 1 pilot setups. The urgency now is the lack of pilots that is expected to get worse over the next 20 years.
Automated flight will most likely include an automated flight controller system. Right now systems are gathering data on driving patterns, algorithms being built for automated cars. Our streets will be treated like a network where our cars are packets being routed through the least congested links. Airplanes will be next.


Cars aren't planes mate. An apples and grapes comparrison. You will need to develop the intelligent AI first.


Elementalism wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

Not the size of a 767 at 400 MPH, Drones do not interact with the airspace system and require hours of preplanning to launch a mission. The technology is just not practical for a commercial airliner and won't be for decades.

If you meant the RC quadcopters that have been labeled as drones then yes they do.


If they can get automated cars to work they can figure out an aircraft. It is less congested in the air than on the ground.


Bad analogy. Cars are infinitely easier to make autonomous. They operate in a basic 2-dimensional environment. Any failure will result in the car just coasting to a halt on the road.

Aircraft can't do that. They need to function with potentially any system on the aircraft failing, even a combination of systems. That would include the autopilot and sensors. Aircraft need to avoid traffic in 3 planes as well as weather. You need to teach the autonomous system how to avoid a building CB, so it doesn't get trapped in between several of them. It needs to know not to fly under the anvil of a TCU. That means by visual sight, because radars won't show anything under those circumstances. And it needs to do so WITH system failures.
Did you know that a sufficiently powerful thunderstorm can completely disrupt communications on VHF, and in particular HF? An autonomous airliner needs to be 100% self reliant.


Cars also live within a much more congested space. That is where I am going. If they can automate cars. And by automate I mean create a system that routes cars and keeps them from crashing into each other, they can do the same with aircraft. The 3rd dimension is not an insurmountable barrier. Congestion and intelligently spacing aircraft in an automated capacity is the barrier imo.

Eveything you listed can be built into the system. There is nothing magical about what humans do when looking at a weather map to avoid the weather. This can all be done within the system. And with the ability to feed the system preliminary weather data. It should be able to predict where not to fly better than most human predictions imo.

And if we have multiple system failures? That can also be accounted for and dealt with within the system.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:16 pm
by KCaviator
Boeing can’t even make a two-pilot plane without it crashing itself into the ground, yet they want to make a single-pilot plane? :rotfl: Okay...

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:20 pm
by Elementalism
ferren wrote:
current computers that are capable of very limited problem solving have weight more than all cargo and passangers and consume more power than engines can produce


Automated system wouldnt be in the air, it would be in a data center. The airplanes would be the end point being controlled by the system. There would have to be some logic on the aircraft to handle it should connectivity be lost. But it shouldnt be thousands of pounds of equipment neither.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:20 pm
by FluidFlow
Elementalism wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

The last flight refresher course my father went to last summer discussed automated cockpits and 1 pilot setups. The urgency now is the lack of pilots that is expected to get worse over the next 20 years.
Automated flight will most likely include an automated flight controller system. Right now systems are gathering data on driving patterns, algorithms being built for automated cars. Our streets will be treated like a network where our cars are packets being routed through the least congested links. Airplanes will be next.


Cars aren't planes mate. An apples and grapes comparrison. You will need to develop the intelligent AI first.


Elementalism wrote:

If they can get automated cars to work they can figure out an aircraft. It is less congested in the air than on the ground.


Bad analogy. Cars are infinitely easier to make autonomous. They operate in a basic 2-dimensional environment. Any failure will result in the car just coasting to a halt on the road.

Aircraft can't do that. They need to function with potentially any system on the aircraft failing, even a combination of systems. That would include the autopilot and sensors. Aircraft need to avoid traffic in 3 planes as well as weather. You need to teach the autonomous system how to avoid a building CB, so it doesn't get trapped in between several of them. It needs to know not to fly under the anvil of a TCU. That means by visual sight, because radars won't show anything under those circumstances. And it needs to do so WITH system failures.
Did you know that a sufficiently powerful thunderstorm can completely disrupt communications on VHF, and in particular HF? An autonomous airliner needs to be 100% self reliant.


Cars also live within a much more congested space. That is where I am going. If they can automate cars. And by automate I mean create a system that routes cars and keeps them from crashing into each other, they can do the same with aircraft. The 3rd dimension is not an insurmountable barrier. Congestion and intelligently spacing aircraft in an automated capacity is the barrier imo.

Eveything you listed can be built into the system. There is nothing magical about what humans do when looking at a weather map to avoid the weather. This can all be done within the system. And with the ability to feed the system preliminary weather data. It should be able to predict where not to fly better than most human predictions imo.

And if we have multiple system failures? That can also be accounted for and dealt with within the system.


Is there not already a system on aircraft that prevents mid air collisions?

And speaking pure geometrically, it is really hard to have to objects hit each other in a 4D environment (x, y, z and t) while in a 3D (x, y and t).

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:22 pm
by Elementalism
zeke wrote:
kordcj wrote:
You guys are underestimating how far we’ve come in automation. Companies are launching rockets that launch and land on their own. NASA has rovers that make decisions on where to go based on the conditions presented. Even shuttle was capable of landing itself. The only need for the pilot was to lower the landing gear. Once Boeing and Airbus demand their suppliers make better/more robust avionics like the space industry does, self driven/guided planes will be the norm.


And yet every month I fly on routes where there is nothing around, closest airport is 3-4 hours away.

No VHF, No HF, No SATCOM.

A lot of parts of the world that simply does not have the ground based infrastructure to support the sort of automation you are suggesting.

There is also the small matter of getting regulators from every country to sign off on it.


You dont think if an automated system were deployed the infrastructure would as well????

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:24 pm
by DL747400
2 pilots together could not keep the 737 MAX from flying itself into the ground..... TWICE. Hundreds of passengers killed. Is there any rational person alive who thinks that a commercial aircraft with a single pilot in the cockpit is even worthy of discussion? Get real people!

I bet Boeing's PR people leaked that to CNBC in order to create a diversion intended to distract the media from the worsening 737 MAX crisis.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:28 pm
by FluidFlow
Elementalism wrote:
ferren wrote:
current computers that are capable of very limited problem solving have weight more than all cargo and passangers and consume more power than engines can produce


Automated system wouldnt be in the air, it would be in a data center. The airplanes would be the end point being controlled by the system. There would have to be some logic on the aircraft to handle it should connectivity be lost. But it shouldnt be thousands of pounds of equipment neither.


Training the algorithms needs a lot of computational power, deploying the trained software is actually no problem.

Weather forecast is done like this. While actually running a precise full forecast model for a large area is computational very expensive you can train a machine to predict the weather without running a simulations just by using statistics. You give the same input parameters as used for the full model but the predictive filter will give you the most possible outcome before it is actually simulated. The error is really small compared for the time saved (multiple hours). And this is for weather forecast which is multiple times more complex than flying an aircraft as there are multiple orders of more input parameters for the weather than the aircraft.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:29 pm
by Elementalism
Bluewho wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
Anybody thinking this (single pilot) can't possibly happen is like the proverbial ostrich -- sticking their head in the sand.

Even today after takeoff on a "normal" flight the only actions required by the pilot is raising and lowering the gear and flaps, setting climb and descent altitudes, setting approach information and speeds, selecting autobrakes and reverse thrust. With a little more automation and uplink capability most of this could be done with no pilot action what so ever. It will come in little bits and pieces until takeoff is automated, then its all over.

Single pilot monitors auto takeoff, gear retracts automatically when airborne, flaps retract automatically as speed increases, airplane flies FMS provided vertical and lateral profile, FMS accepts ATC uplinked modifications automatically, descent profile including altitudes, landing speeds and autobrake setting is uplinked, gear and flaps are extended automatically and the airplane makes an automatic landing, braking as necessary to clear at the ATC selected turn off. Much of this can be done already.



But again you better redesign the whole ATC system. There is this view on here that everything is done like a movie script. It’s not. You also forgot setting the navigation points, or deviations for weather or a bunch of other things. Look when you “tech” guys vastly change the ATC environment I work in I’ll buy all of this. Uplink this up link that. Funny especially when I just had to do my own landing numbers and data because wait for it the uplink didn’t work. But this argument goes around and around because the tech gods will always say that wouldn’t happen because of this this and this. Fired up the new cpdlc the other day waited waited waited, picked up that old technology radio to call clearance oh yeah it’s down and we are having a hard time with sending clearances are you ready to copy? Sure I used even older technology the pen to write it down. But yes I know that would never happen. I have seen pilots do weird thing and I have certainly seen my airplane do some weird stuff.


ATC system is automated as well. In fact the ATC system is what would probably be the automated system that routes traffic.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:31 pm
by Elementalism
WorldFlier wrote:
Aesma wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:

I believe we are done here. Either you need a backup or you don't need a single person. The risk of failure is too high because if there's an issue with the pilot, what are the odds that there isn't an issue with the ground link?

Too high.


The default is the plane flies itself. With necessary redundant computers, using separate software stacks so that a bug can't affect all the computers, etc.

The pilot is there as a backup, basically to reassure passengers.

Ground link's only purpose is for when the pilot is sabotaging the flight, to override him/her.

So it's true, there would be no need for any pilot.


If the ground link can override the pilot, so can a hacker...and Commercial airplanes surely won't have the same level of security as a military drone.

That is definitely not something you want. The cost "savings" will be outweighed by R&D and the first system failure where ISIS (or a state actor pretending to be ISIS) takes over an airplane via satellite uplink...


This might surprise you. But private industry can be ahead of military technology when it comes to security. The reason is pretty straight forward. Stakeholders dont like it when their wealth is stolen. While the military is bogged down in govt malaise. No airline would like to have their aircraft stolen or crashed. The costs would be astronomical.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:34 pm
by FluidFlow
DL747400 wrote:
2 pilots together could not keep the 737 MAX from flying itself into the ground..... TWICE. Hundreds of passengers killed. Is there any rational person alive who thinks that a commercial aircraft with a single pilot in the cockpit is even worthy of discussion? Get real people!

I bet Boeing's PR people leaked that to CNBC in order to create a diversion intended to distract the media from the worsening 737 MAX crisis.


Just because Boeing was not able to build an aircraft that could not troubleshoot a defect AoA sensor or relies on redundancy to circumvent this problem does not mean they are also unable in the future. Or so I hope...

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:43 pm
by dtw2hyd
FluidFlow wrote:
...
On the other side if a pilot would make inputs that bring an aircraft in danger the machine will have no problem to detect that this input would lead to a crash. FBW aircraft can already prevent stall and bad input in protected mode. There is nothing preventing a machine to protect itself even more. Ground proximity warning could lead to automatic TOGA trust and a pitch up until the aircraft is 10'000ft above ground level. This tools would already be there, they are just not used.


Glad you spilled the beans in para 3.

There was nothing preventing a machine to protect itself, crew and passengers even if a not so intelligent human pilot makes a mistake, but it didn't, twice.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:56 pm
by FluidFlow
dtw2hyd wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
...
On the other side if a pilot would make inputs that bring an aircraft in danger the machine will have no problem to detect that this input would lead to a crash. FBW aircraft can already prevent stall and bad input in protected mode. There is nothing preventing a machine to protect itself even more. Ground proximity warning could lead to automatic TOGA trust and a pitch up until the aircraft is 10'000ft above ground level. This tools would already be there, they are just not used.


Glad you spilled the beans in para 3.

There was nothing preventing a machine to protect itself, crew and passengers even if a not so intelligent human pilot makes a mistake, but it didn't, twice.


I think we need to separate the current state of aircraft and the future one. Today one way or another the pilot can always override the system and do stupid stuff if he wants to.

This has also nothing to do with stupid or not and probably also happened dozens of times on multiple airliners over the last 100 years.

And you actually changed my quote from is to was. What I wanted to say is, that there is already enough data to add systems on the current aircraft to do certain things in certain situations but they are not there for regulatory reasons and also they are not needed in the current aviation regime.

This will change over time and more automation will be implemented and more authority will be taken away from the pilots. Not because they are stupid but it is scientifically proven, that machines do not change their behavior when under stress. Impending death causes stress and mistakes happen therefore more often. The computer will not make this mistakes, as long as it is fully functional. And to guarantee functionality you have at least triple redundancy of every sensor and every system.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:59 pm
by WorldFlier
Elementalism wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
Aesma wrote:

The default is the plane flies itself. With necessary redundant computers, using separate software stacks so that a bug can't affect all the computers, etc.

The pilot is there as a backup, basically to reassure passengers.

Ground link's only purpose is for when the pilot is sabotaging the flight, to override him/her.

So it's true, there would be no need for any pilot.


If the ground link can override the pilot, so can a hacker...and Commercial airplanes surely won't have the same level of security as a military drone.

That is definitely not something you want. The cost "savings" will be outweighed by R&D and the first system failure where ISIS (or a state actor pretending to be ISIS) takes over an airplane via satellite uplink...


This might surprise you. But private industry can be ahead of military technology when it comes to security. The reason is pretty straight forward. Stakeholders dont like it when their wealth is stolen. While the military is bogged down in govt malaise. No airline would like to have their aircraft stolen or crashed. The costs would be astronomical.


I think you're right when it comes to private industry being ahead in terms of security, but Airlines are so conservative. I can't see this happening for a very long time in anything larger than a private jet.

Let's see! I'll be honest, I wouldn't fly it because you can't compare a driver-less train (on tracks, one-dimensional challenge) to a multi-dimensional problem, especially when faulty sensor data has caused so many crashes...

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:04 pm
by BoeingGuy
texl1649 wrote:
Pretty sure Boeing won't jump right into deploying it this way out of the gate on the pax 797. Especially if it's offered to airlines soon, given their, ahem, black eye over safety systems/training/deployment on the max.


Guys, I’ve said three times now. I’m familiar with the 797 design. It’s a two-person flight deck. There are no plans to make it one-person.

In fact, I asked this very question awhile back.

Had nothing to do with recent events either. That was the concept all along. The technology for one-pilot isn’t close to being ready for a decade or two.

Case closed.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:05 pm
by BoeingGuy
FluidFlow wrote:
DL747400 wrote:
2 pilots together could not keep the 737 MAX from flying itself into the ground..... TWICE. Hundreds of passengers killed. Is there any rational person alive who thinks that a commercial aircraft with a single pilot in the cockpit is even worthy of discussion? Get real people!

I bet Boeing's PR people leaked that to CNBC in order to create a diversion intended to distract the media from the worsening 737 MAX crisis.


Just because Boeing was not able to build an aircraft that could not troubleshoot a defect AoA sensor or relies on redundancy to circumvent this problem does not mean they are also unable in the future. Or so I hope...


You mean like every other Boeing model built in the past 37 years build with redundancy?

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:08 pm
by BoeingGuy
DL747400 wrote:
2 pilots together could not keep the 737 MAX from flying itself into the ground..... TWICE. Hundreds of passengers killed. Is there any rational person alive who thinks that a commercial aircraft with a single pilot in the cockpit is even worthy of discussion? Get real people!

I bet Boeing's PR people leaked that to CNBC in order to create a diversion intended to distract the media from the worsening 737 MAX crisis.


Yet another thread with a bunch of false drama and sensationalism.

Boeing did no such thing. That’s absurd. Did you read the article? I bet not.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:09 pm
by Revo1059
If/when this ever comes to fruition, it will start on the cargo side first. Let cargo build up years of hours validating the platform, then you might see it roll into commercial.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:09 pm
by FluidFlow
BoeingGuy wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
DL747400 wrote:
2 pilots together could not keep the 737 MAX from flying itself into the ground..... TWICE. Hundreds of passengers killed. Is there any rational person alive who thinks that a commercial aircraft with a single pilot in the cockpit is even worthy of discussion? Get real people!

I bet Boeing's PR people leaked that to CNBC in order to create a diversion intended to distract the media from the worsening 737 MAX crisis.


Just because Boeing was not able to build an aircraft that could not troubleshoot a defect AoA sensor or relies on redundancy to circumvent this problem does not mean they are also unable in the future. Or so I hope...


You mean like every other Boeing model built in the past 37 years build with redundancy?


Of course, I really worded that bad, but you know what I mean in regard to MCAS activation only relying on one sensor. It will be changed now. But as of know the machine can not say which AoA is wrong on the 737 compared to the newer Boeing designs and in the future predictive filtering and models will even allow to tell you which sensor is faulty even if you only have two. I still think all future models will have three and as you are familiar with the 797 I am pretty sure it has at least three of every sensor.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:12 pm
by dtw2hyd
FluidFlow wrote:
...

I think we need to separate the current state of aircraft and the future one. Today one way or another the pilot can always override the system and do stupid stuff if he wants to.

This has also nothing to do with stupid or not and probably also happened dozens of times on multiple airliners over the last 100 years.

And you actually changed my quote from is to was. What I wanted to say is, that there is already enough data to add systems on the current aircraft to do certain things in certain situations but they are not there for regulatory reasons and also they are not needed in the current aviation regime.

This will change over time and more automation will be implemented and more authority will be taken away from the pilots. Not because they are stupid but it is scientifically proven, that machines do not change their behavior when under stress. Impending death causes stress and mistakes happen therefore more often. The computer will not make this mistakes, as long as it is fully functional. And to guarantee functionality you have at least triple redundancy of every sensor and every system.


There are more instances where human intuition saved the day reacting to a situation which was not a use case given to the developer by designers or SMEs sitting at their desk comfortably.

Like I said in the past if machines can fix themselves and others, there wouldn't a need to human space flight.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:14 pm
by BoeingGuy
FluidFlow wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Just because Boeing was not able to build an aircraft that could not troubleshoot a defect AoA sensor or relies on redundancy to circumvent this problem does not mean they are also unable in the future. Or so I hope...


You mean like every other Boeing model built in the past 37 years build with redundancy?


Of course, I really worded that bad, but you know what I mean in regard to MCAS activation only relying on one sensor. It will be changed now. But as of know the machine can not say which AoA is wrong on the 737 compared to the newer Boeing designs and in the future predictive filtering and models will even allow to tell you which sensor is faulty even if you only have two. I still think all future models will have three and as you are familiar with the 797 I am pretty sure it has at least three of every sensor.


Every Boeing model has two AOA sensors. They have two or three sensors of most things depending on the system unless it’s really not critical.

If there are two sensors, such as Radio Altimeter on the 777X they’ll use the last voted value as the third value and vote that with the two current inputs. If there are three sensors it usually uses a mid-point selection vote.

Boeing didn’t magically dumb down the 737 design for MCAS. That airplane just has a different design philosophy due to when it was first built. It does things a little differently.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:22 pm
by FluidFlow
dtw2hyd wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
...

I think we need to separate the current state of aircraft and the future one. Today one way or another the pilot can always override the system and do stupid stuff if he wants to.

This has also nothing to do with stupid or not and probably also happened dozens of times on multiple airliners over the last 100 years.

And you actually changed my quote from is to was. What I wanted to say is, that there is already enough data to add systems on the current aircraft to do certain things in certain situations but they are not there for regulatory reasons and also they are not needed in the current aviation regime.

This will change over time and more automation will be implemented and more authority will be taken away from the pilots. Not because they are stupid but it is scientifically proven, that machines do not change their behavior when under stress. Impending death causes stress and mistakes happen therefore more often. The computer will not make this mistakes, as long as it is fully functional. And to guarantee functionality you have at least triple redundancy of every sensor and every system.


There are more instances where human intuition saved the day reacting to a situation which was not a use case given to the developer by designers or SMEs sitting at their desk comfortably.

Like I said in the past if machines can fix themselves and others, there wouldn't a need to human space flight.


Human space flight is only done for research, since the shuttle program is over nothing gets repaired anymore in space except for the research station itself.

The good thing about this instances is actually, that what happened once can be used to teach. Does not matter if to a computer or to a human. Therefore all this instances are brilliant for automation.

It was never thought that a pilot could miss to break during landing and it happened, hence auto breaking. Same thing for deploying spoilers. The machine does not forget such things as long as the machine is working. If the engineer would have thought of it or would have been aware of the severity of missing it, it would have been integrated way earlier.

We have a massive pool of experience and we can stuff that all into a machine that never forgets and automatically applies the best procedure and what is even better, if it would be the wrong one it will correct in seconds as it has no pride in seeing it was wrong or thinking that it is right. Because if the algorithms decide another procedure will give a better chance of survival it will use it.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:26 pm
by Elementalism
WorldFlier wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:

If the ground link can override the pilot, so can a hacker...and Commercial airplanes surely won't have the same level of security as a military drone.

That is definitely not something you want. The cost "savings" will be outweighed by R&D and the first system failure where ISIS (or a state actor pretending to be ISIS) takes over an airplane via satellite uplink...


This might surprise you. But private industry can be ahead of military technology when it comes to security. The reason is pretty straight forward. Stakeholders dont like it when their wealth is stolen. While the military is bogged down in govt malaise. No airline would like to have their aircraft stolen or crashed. The costs would be astronomical.


I think you're right when it comes to private industry being ahead in terms of security, but Airlines are so conservative. I can't see this happening for a very long time in anything larger than a private jet.

Let's see! I'll be honest, I wouldn't fly it because you can't compare a driver-less train (on tracks, one-dimensional challenge) to a multi-dimensional problem, especially when faulty sensor data has caused so many crashes...


This is a theoretical discussion. No plans have been hinted at automating aircraft. Social acceptance will have to also factor into the situation. I think cars will be the first place automation happens. Once people are comfortable with automation there it will move to aircraft. I expect pilots through the rest of my life ~40 years. But it would not surprise me to see some aircraft being fully automated by the time I leave this planet.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:41 pm
by dtw2hyd
FluidFlow wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
...

I think we need to separate the current state of aircraft and the future one. Today one way or another the pilot can always override the system and do stupid stuff if he wants to.

This has also nothing to do with stupid or not and probably also happened dozens of times on multiple airliners over the last 100 years.

And you actually changed my quote from is to was. What I wanted to say is, that there is already enough data to add systems on the current aircraft to do certain things in certain situations but they are not there for regulatory reasons and also they are not needed in the current aviation regime.

This will change over time and more automation will be implemented and more authority will be taken away from the pilots. Not because they are stupid but it is scientifically proven, that machines do not change their behavior when under stress. Impending death causes stress and mistakes happen therefore more often. The computer will not make this mistakes, as long as it is fully functional. And to guarantee functionality you have at least triple redundancy of every sensor and every system.


There are more instances where human intuition saved the day reacting to a situation which was not a use case given to the developer by designers or SMEs sitting at their desk comfortably.

Like I said in the past if machines can fix themselves and others, there wouldn't a need to human space flight.


Human space flight is only done for research, since the shuttle program is over nothing gets repaired anymore in space except for the research station itself.

The good thing about this instances is actually, that what happened once can be used to teach. Does not matter if to a computer or to a human. Therefore all this instances are brilliant for automation.

It was never thought that a pilot could miss to break during landing and it happened, hence auto breaking. Same thing for deploying spoilers. The machine does not forget such things as long as the machine is working. If the engineer would have thought of it or would have been aware of the severity of missing it, it would have been integrated way earlier.

We have a massive pool of experience and we can stuff that all into a machine that never forgets and automatically applies the best procedure and what is even better, if it would be the wrong one it will correct in seconds as it has no pride in seeing it was wrong or thinking that it is write. Because if the algorithms decide another procedure will give a better chance of survival it will use it.


Over the last 60 years, sensors didn't change much, only the software changed. Sticking a tube into the air to measure the speed (hope bees or ice didn't block the tube) or sticking a thin piece of metal into the air to measure AoA.

Is there any system to recognize level flight? Maybe a long plastic pipe with water and water level sensors at both ends would be able to avoid automated 40-degree nose down pitch.

Sam Graves (R-MO 6th) says there is no need for AoA indicator, look at the horizon indicator or look thru the window. He not only eliminated the need for AoA sensors but also fixed vertigo issues. Not sure who gave him the talking points.

There is a concerted effort to make the pilot the enemy.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:49 pm
by FluidFlow
dtw2hyd wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

There are more instances where human intuition saved the day reacting to a situation which was not a use case given to the developer by designers or SMEs sitting at their desk comfortably.

Like I said in the past if machines can fix themselves and others, there wouldn't a need to human space flight.


Human space flight is only done for research, since the shuttle program is over nothing gets repaired anymore in space except for the research station itself.

The good thing about this instances is actually, that what happened once can be used to teach. Does not matter if to a computer or to a human. Therefore all this instances are brilliant for automation.

It was never thought that a pilot could miss to break during landing and it happened, hence auto breaking. Same thing for deploying spoilers. The machine does not forget such things as long as the machine is working. If the engineer would have thought of it or would have been aware of the severity of missing it, it would have been integrated way earlier.

We have a massive pool of experience and we can stuff that all into a machine that never forgets and automatically applies the best procedure and what is even better, if it would be the wrong one it will correct in seconds as it has no pride in seeing it was wrong or thinking that it is write. Because if the algorithms decide another procedure will give a better chance of survival it will use it.


Over the last 60 years, sensors didn't change much, only the software changed. Sticking a tube into the air to measure the speed (hope bees or ice didn't block the tube) or sticking a thin piece of metal into the air to measure AoA.

Is there any system to recognize level flight? Maybe a long plastic pipe with water and water level sensors at both ends would be able to avoid automated 40-degree nose down pitch.

Sam Graves (R-MO 6th) says there is no need for AoA indicator, look at the horizon indicator or look thru the window. He not only eliminated the need for AoA sensors but also fixed vertigo issues. Not sure who gave him the talking points.

There is a concerted effort to make the pilot the enemy.



If you use all the inputs you have like gyroscope, GPS, velocity, altitude (Radio altimeter), pressure, AoA, etc. and feed a predictive filter with it, it can exactly tell you which one of them is off. Certain rates of changes are just not possible. Do you need level flight? Altimeter, pressure, gyroscope, AoA and GPS can all deliver hints and if one of them failed, the others will deliver the results to eliminate the input of the failed sensor.

In addition to the fact that this sensors are redundant and the machine can also determine there if inputs are wrong.

And the pilot is not the enemy, but humans have certain limits that are biologically given. Machines do not. Right now we use machines to support the pilot but in the future the pilot will support the machines and even further in the future the machines will be fine without support.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:55 pm
by BoeingGuy
Elementalism wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

This might surprise you. But private industry can be ahead of military technology when it comes to security. The reason is pretty straight forward. Stakeholders dont like it when their wealth is stolen. While the military is bogged down in govt malaise. No airline would like to have their aircraft stolen or crashed. The costs would be astronomical.


I think you're right when it comes to private industry being ahead in terms of security, but Airlines are so conservative. I can't see this happening for a very long time in anything larger than a private jet.

Let's see! I'll be honest, I wouldn't fly it because you can't compare a driver-less train (on tracks, one-dimensional challenge) to a multi-dimensional problem, especially when faulty sensor data has caused so many crashes...


This is a theoretical discussion. No plans have been hinted at automating aircraft. Social acceptance will have to also factor into the situation. I think cars will be the first place automation happens. Once people are comfortable with automation there it will move to aircraft. I expect pilots through the rest of my life ~40 years. But it would not surprise me to see some aircraft being fully automated by the time I leave this planet.


First airplane automation will likely be small cargo planes about the size of a Caravan. Will likely be 20+ years before single pilot in a large passenger plane and longer for full automation.

I asked this very question about the NMA in a meeting if there was some secret plan to make it single pilot. Not even close to being planned at this point.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:11 pm
by dtw2hyd
BoeingGuy wrote:
...
First airplane automation will likely be small cargo planes about the size of a Caravan. Will likely be 20+ years before single pilot in a large passenger plane and longer for full automation.

I asked this very question about the NMA in a meeting if there was some secret plan to make it single pilot. Not even close to being planned at this point.


Glad to know NMA EIS is not 20+ year away, which is actually 10 years overdue, IMHO.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:27 pm
by jfklganyc
Did anyone actually read the article???

Per Boeing, the 797 ISNT a single pilot plane!

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:27 pm
by jeffrey0032j
I would want this thread to be passed down to future generations as a reminder of how people today predict their times. Perhaps some laughter over outright backwards views such as "there will never be a single pilot/pilotless plane because manufacturer X crashed 2 planes" and praise for those who advocate a more rational and gradual approach (by any manufacturer).

A lot of people here are jumping the gun, nobody is suggesting that it will happen tomorrow or within 10 years. Maybe its the manufacturer's name, but then again the manufacturer is now shown to be trying to do something advanced (even though its a rumour), and the same people screaming 60 year old planes are attacking it.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:41 pm
by Heinkel
Chemist wrote:
Heinkel wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
Not. A. Chance.


May be not from Boeing. They are sometimes so old school. (Control yokes, no FBW, etc...)



The yoke vs sidestick UI doesn't really affect the ability of the plane so I don't know why you bring that up.
Boeing's newest models are also FBW.


Control yokes are a thing from the past. Especially in a FBW a/c. No need to pull with brute force on the controls. They are just electric switches. One day Boeing will admit.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:45 pm
by Heinkel
Luftymatt wrote:
Heinkel wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
Not. A. Chance.


May be not from Boeing. They are sometimes so old school. (Control yokes, no FBW, etc...)


How do you think Boeing 777's and 787's are controlled? Plus quite a few systems in the 747-8? It's a misconception that Boeing don't do fly by wire. Like or not FBW is the future, for airliners at least.


I know, that the 777s and 787s are FBW but still not using the possibilities of FBW. No state of the art flight envelope protection and still the old school control yokes. Their paragigma is "the pilot has the final authority". At least, what they tell them.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:50 pm
by robsaw
SierraPacific wrote:

Not the size of a 767 at 400 MPH, Drones do not interact with the airspace system and require hours of preplanning to launch a mission. The technology is just not practical for a commercial airliner and won't be for decades.

If you meant the RC quadcopters that have been labeled as drones then yes they do.


Larger drones (at least their ground-based operators) do interact with the airspace system and DO require hours of preplanning to launch a mission (personal experience with a military operator). Yes, this happens in relatively few places and in more tightly controlled circumstances than regular passenger flights - but it does happen.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:51 pm
by Heinkel
sierrakilo44 wrote:
Heinkel wrote:
When I did my first flight on a B737 in 1971, it had a three-man-cockpit. Real longhaul a/c had four or five. And today? Two-person flight deck is standard and safety has increased. The statistics don't lie.


The 737 has never had a 3 person flight deck. There is zero space to install a F/E panel. Some airlines may have operated them initially with a third pilot on the F/Deck for union demands, but that would've ended when it became obvious the third pilot didn't need to do anything at all.

Those roles (radio operator, navigator, flight engineer) weren't automated out of the aircraft, those roles were simply passed along to the pilots with the aid of automation. For instance the F/E and the non flying pilot used to action and crosscheck the engine fire drill. Now it's the flying and non flying pilots.


Oh, sorry, my fault. A typo. My first flight in 1971 (HAJ-FRA-TFN) was on a CONDOR B727 and that one had definitely a 3 person flight deck.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 4:14 pm
by SierraPacific
robsaw wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

Not the size of a 767 at 400 MPH, Drones do not interact with the airspace system and require hours of preplanning to launch a mission. The technology is just not practical for a commercial airliner and won't be for decades.

If you meant the RC quadcopters that have been labeled as drones then yes they do.


Larger drones (at least their ground-based operators) do interact with the airspace system and DO require hours of preplanning to launch a mission (personal experience with a military operator). Yes, this happens in relatively few places and in more tightly controlled circumstances than regular passenger flights - but it does happen.


I think we can both agree that they do not fly into LAX during the rush though which is what this airplane would have to do. I don't think that it will be practical for generations or until someone invents a general AI but who will be still employed after that :lol: .

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 4:19 pm
by Heinkel
BoeingGuy wrote:
Guys, I’ve said three times now. I’m familiar with the 797 design. It’s a two-person flight deck. There are no plans to make it one-person.

In fact, I asked this very question awhile back.

Had nothing to do with recent events either. That was the concept all along. The technology for one-pilot isn’t close to being ready for a decade or two.

Case closed.


That's what I said. We'll have the one-person-flight deck not tomorrow but in 20 years.

Today my four years old car (2014er) is radar controlled and autonomously keeps the distance to the vehicle in front. It stops and accelerates again. All I have to do is a little steering to keep it on the lane (Modern cars can do that, too). GPS and Internet is on board, too. I enjoy it every morning in the dense trafic on the Autobahn. No series car from 20 years earlier on this planet could have done that.

As long as your POTUS doesn't start WWIII, I'm quite sure, that we'll have single-pilot-airliners in the next 20 years.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:58 pm
by Chemist
Heinkel wrote:
Chemist wrote:
Heinkel wrote:

May be not from Boeing. They are sometimes so old school. (Control yokes, no FBW, etc...)



The yoke vs sidestick UI doesn't really affect the ability of the plane so I don't know why you bring that up.
Boeing's newest models are also FBW.


Control yokes are a thing from the past. Especially in a FBW a/c. No need to pull with brute force on the controls. They are just electric switches. One day Boeing will admit.


That lack of visible feedback and force worked well for Air France over the Atlantic, didn't it?

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:47 pm
by robsaw
SierraPacific wrote:

I think we can both agree that they do not fly into LAX during the rush though which is what this airplane would have to do. I don't think that it will be practical for generations or until someone invents a general AI but who will be still employed after that :lol: .


Oh, I agree, there is much time and many hurdles, technical and psychological before we'll see fully automatic/remotely piloted air vehicles replacing in any substantial way the system that exists today.

The 797 COULD have a design goal to accommodate a single pilot cockpit - not the same as actually flying as such at launch.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:51 pm
by RobertPhoenix
Will people fly on an aircraft without a pilot ?

All I can say is that I used to fly fairly frequently on BEA's Tridents. There was nothing more reassuring when coming into land than to hear the engines slowly revving up and revving down. Then you knew you were on an automated landing, and you knew exactly how the landing was going to go. A fairly heavy hit on the runway and an immediate application of reverse thrust. Beautiful and very reassuring.

I did wonder if the heavy landings contributed to the fact that they had to repair/refurbish/strengthen the wings of the Tridents at some point.

The revving up and revving down was deliberate I understand, to eliminate the effects of hysteresis somewhere in the system.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:59 pm
by robsaw
Chemist wrote:

That lack of visible feedback and force worked well for Air France over the Atlantic, didn't it?


Assuming you mean AF447. They had visible feedback from the instruments on an inappropriate attitude. Force feedback wouldn't have helped when the pilot was flying the wrong solution to correct a stall. It does point out that with invalid airspeed info the automation did not and could not make the necessary attitude correction on its own and would not override the pilots inputs.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 7:00 pm
by Heinkel
Chemist wrote:
Heinkel wrote:
Chemist wrote:

The yoke vs sidestick UI doesn't really affect the ability of the plane so I don't know why you bring that up.
Boeing's newest models are also FBW.


Control yokes are a thing from the past. Especially in a FBW a/c. No need to pull with brute force on the controls. They are just electric switches. One day Boeing will admit.


That lack of visible feedback and force worked well for Air France over the Atlantic, didn't it?


In two more recent cases the traditional control yokes also didn't work well. You need both hands to pull back the control yoke. No hand left for the trim wheel.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 7:52 pm
by LaunchDetected
Airbus is working on it with the help of Thales. It’s the logical next step and it will be a game changer.

We just have to wait for the pilot strikes.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 8:39 pm
by texl1649
BoeingGuy wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Pretty sure Boeing won't jump right into deploying it this way out of the gate on the pax 797. Especially if it's offered to airlines soon, given their, ahem, black eye over safety systems/training/deployment on the max.


Guys, I’ve said three times now. I’m familiar with the 797 design. It’s a two-person flight deck. There are no plans to make it one-person.

In fact, I asked this very question awhile back.

Had nothing to do with recent events either. That was the concept all along. The technology for one-pilot isn’t close to being ready for a decade or two.

Case closed.


Thx, I was too lazy to read through the thread, just saw some of the theatrical responses on page one. The TML just isn't close sounds...factual.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 8:43 pm
by 747megatop
Aither wrote:
An IT guy someone in Hyderabad will pilot your aircraft.
Sounds great.

Well, Hyderabad or Dublin or SF; doesn't matter. Results are the same. Passengers - you are on your own when S%^T hits the FAN.

Re: B 797 - One pilot cockpit?

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:14 pm
by ss278
Actually its being designed for one pilot and one dog.

The pilot's job is only to monitor the instruments. The dog's job is to bite the pilot if it even appears that he/she is going to touch something.