Nicc HK

I read this article http://www.reuters.com/business/aero...aul-2021-06-16

Now I am a qualified pilot, though non-Commercial, and I have experienced issues which could have ended with me not writing this now.

I am sceptical of the level of technology available required for this, and will not set foot on a single piloted commercial aircraft anytime soon. My reasoning:

1. Long flights are tiring and would be hard work for a single pilot, does that mean he has to sit there for the entire flight. I guess CX considers reducing the cockpit crew from 3 to 2 for say a London flight.
2. In emergency situations 2 heads are way better than 1 to resolve the issues (and yes like AF the 2 pilots together can get it wrong), also if the back up pilot is asleep then the time to bring that experience to use could be vital and wasted. No back up and even the best pilots could find themselves overwhelmed by having to perform multiple actions in sequence and fast
3. I believe a new level of technology would need to be required to fly the aircraft from a ground station as back up. I realise that Military Drones are flown in this way and engine manufacturers have sophisticated tools for monitoring engine performance in flight
4. This will place additional pressure on the pilots, while extremely rare it has been known for pilots to 'fly into terrain', by mistake (ASIANA/Korean) or deliberately (Eurowings and probably Malaysian)
5. Yes there are one driver trains, but they are on the ground run along fixed rails with a 'dead man's handle'. Self driving cars have not so far come anywhere close to even matching the autopilot on a plane.
6. What happens if the pilot becomes sick or incapacitated? Remember the CX flight that diverted 8 odd hours from the North Cape to London after becoming ill on a JFK-HKG flight.

I am well aware many GA flights only employ 1 pilot, however that is a different dynamic where the passengers are fully aware of the situation, and make a deliberate choice knowing that.

Perhaps I am a Luddite, but I feel for the foreseeable future this is yet another bean-counter measure aimed at saving money until something happens that completely wipes out those savings, which invariably happens. Boeing 737Max comes to mind in the aviation industry

freed0m

Were you against auto-piloting when Boeing and Airbus introduced it long long ago? Today, auto-pilot is most of the flying for commercial airlines.

And you must be against Tesla auto-pilot, too, I guess.

Technology moves forward with or without people agreeing

deadinabsentia

So when everyone’s jobs are taken over by AI or reduced from four to one people, what are people to do to earn and live?

Our population is increasing, but our need for a educated and skilled work force decreases to provide greater ‘profits’

Seems likely that eventually people won’t have money to fly on pilotless aircraft or driverless taxis.

It’s short sighted, selfish capitalism with no thought. Look at your kids and grandkids before you sell out their futures.

CX HK

I get your point but its a balance. With this logic, every technological advancement would be banned. ATM's to self checkout at supermarkets or online check-in - all of these would be banned in order to create more jobs and so more people stay employed.

freed0m

More income are brought with technology, not against technology. So I doubt that fewer people can afford pilotless planes. And I am pretty sure that auto-piloting brings more passengers into flying commercial airlines.

people move forward with technology. If you stand still, don’t complain.

deadinabsentia

Cost savings aren't progress.

freed0m

Why not?

With lower cost, deliver similar or better product/service. It is a great progress.

BRITINJAPAN4

Auto pilot did not mean less than two pilots, Also Auto pilot can be switched off.

As for Tesla, yes, I think we are some way from this being safe, but we will get there, , I agree this is more about the operatot who should monito the AP, which is normally done on an aircraft

BRITINJAPAN4

Or any labour saving device , !

Nicc HK

The first autopilot dates from 1912 well before Boeing or Airbus existed. Yes Auto-pilot is used for much of the flying, but please tell me when it is used to deal with an emergency. Auto-pilots are one trick ponies, granted its a very good trick.

There are still many airports around the world where auto-landing is not permitted, and up until 1998 that included the late lamented Kai Tak.

I have no problem with new technology that brings positive progress.

I have a lot of problems with technology whose goal is to cut costs, which this is, because that inevitably leads to problems. Exhibit A is the 737MAX whose problems directly relate to human/systems control failures.

freed0m

It is to reduce pilot, not eliminate pilots. So there is at least one pilot to handle emergency.

I did not see any mention of auto-landing.

Cost-cutting is one of the drive pushing the technology. There are many problems with B737MAX, cost cutting is not necessarily the fundamental problem in Boeing.

Nicc HK

Well I have been a pilot in a Mayday situation and I can say that it would have been nice to have had a co-pilot.

The reason why I brought up Auto-landing is because there is a good reason why certain airports and hands-on only.

Cost cutting has been the root of so many of the problems at Boeing, and has been well documented.

RA-wannabe

My 2 cents. The sooner we get rid of pilots, the safer I feel in the air. I think technology has advanced significantly such that humans make more mistakes when they interfere with machines rather than let machines do what they are good at. Design process has to be better so that when any state fail, it will always fail into a "safe" state.

This is not a bet for cost efficiency, but a bet for technology.

Admiral Ackbar

Edit: not worth it

BRITINJAPAN4

Unfortunately, its humans that program the technology, all i have to say is 737Max ! It still amazes me that there was no failsafe sensor, no easyway to overide and no training to make the pilots aware the system existed !