Antonio8069

This from the WSJ January 25, 2018:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-fly...fer-1516804292

Pesky Monkey

Paywalled article.

DragonSoul

Found a link to read it but it goes to a paywall when I post the link.

Basically the reasons, according to industry experts, are:

Today’s airplanes less breakable

Leasing companies and banks demand for top-level maintenance on “their” planes.

Global alliances and code-sharing partnerships, as regulators require airlines to verify safety on partner airlines.

IATA’s safety audits (400 airlines on its safety-audit registry).

Safety nets built into aircraft (take-off, landing, windshear)

Runway status lights and ground radar

Landing guidance systems

yandosan

I don't know much about safety issues, but I feel part of "security" is (or should be) the pleasantness of the trip and that seems to be at all-time low, at least in the USA.
Between the tyrannical TSA agents, cranky ticket agents, nosy Customs officials, and continually shrinking airplane seats, it aint much fun at all these days.
I still remember when it was enjoyable, though.

VelvetJones

Technology in general is probably the biggest reason. If you look at most major air disasters they almost always involved a simple human error. As more systems were automated and improvements were made to radar(both TCAS and weather), the chance of random mental lapses causing an accident went down dramatically. Human beings can still override these systems(Air France 447 is a prime example), but they're becoming more full proof. I would not surprised if there were no pilots on large airliners and no human ATC at most large airports 20 years from now.

cestmoi123

I will happily take that bet.

VelvetJones

I know historically these types of predictions have been amazingly incorrect, but this time might be different. One, AI is finally starting to catch up to where we thought it would be. Two, an acute pilot shortage is coming sooner rather that later. We already can build a plane that could fly itself for 99.9% of situations. It's handling those 0.1% of situations that it becomes tricky.

84fiero

And that 0.1% is what counts - UA 232, the Miracle on the Hudson, and other situations where the crew's judgment and/or creative thinking made the difference - not to mention the many incidents that we never hear about because an accident was avoided entirely. Yes there are also many accidents that have been a result of human error but there are more and better safeguards all the time. I think it's not just technical capability but also public acceptance that factors into it as well. A lot of the public wouldn't trust a pilot-less airliner for the foreseeable future, would be my guess.

Now if we start talking 100 years, 250 years, etc. down the road - I think there will eventually come a day when pilot-less airliners are the norm...or some other mode of transport has overcome airliners as we know them anyway. But I don't foresee it happening in the shorter-term future.

But who knows, just my uneducated two cents - I could be totally wrong. It's fun to speculate though.

cestmoi123

Think of it this way: losing a 737 of pax is around a billion dollars (150 pax at around $6M a piece (# gov't uses when calculating cost/benefit of environmental regs), plus $100M for the plane. Having two pilots on staff for a year costs $500k max. So, if having pilots in the cockpit increases the odds against a fatal crash over the course of a year by 1 in 2000, then the math makes sense.

This doesn't take into account the fact that the first airline that uses a pilotless plane, and then has a crash that MIGHT have been preventable had there been pilots, would face a massive public backlash that's probably business ending.

Keeping pilots in the cockpit is really very cheap insurance.

Boggie Dog

With advanced AI it might be reasonable to only have one pilot. I could see that as being more likely as having no pilots onboard.

cestmoi123

That certainly seems more plausible. Question is, what airline is going to go first?

Boggie Dog

I think first there would have to be a FAA Type Certificate for a one pilot + AI cockpit. So an aircraft manufacturer will have to go first.

mdkowals

Which country will be the first to allow it? I think the co-pilot requirement is a legal one.

I watched a show once where they were interviewing the Ryan Air CEO and he was talking about the next 'cost cutting' innovation. His idea was to combine the co-pilot role with that of a flight attendant. You'd have some sort of health monitor on the captain, and in event of an emergency the co-pilot would report to the cockpit. Otherwise, they're pushing the drink cart around.

VelvetJones

Yes, but as systems become more advanced the need to have a pilot on the plane becomes less and less. Even now, with the fly-by-wire systems, if there is a massive failure of the control systems you are done. So do you need a person physically in the cockpit? There are already drones flying extended missions via remote pilots and automation. I do not think this is so far out. It is more of a legal and labor issue than a technical one.

Boggie Dog

From a technical standpoint you may be exactly right but from the passengers perspective having a pilot in the cockpit might be reassuring enough to justify the cost. Let George fly with a human backup. It wasn't that long ago that cockpits often had two pilots and a flight engineer. Then as automation and more advanced controls came on line the flight engineer position was eliminated leaving two pilots to carry out the workload. Jumping from two pilots to no pilots is a big step. I'm thinking small steps instead of one large leap.