Leaderboard

I actually think it is pretty complicated. How do you ensure the CAT III systems are always available? And if they're not, do you divert and land immediately? For me, it's not always working, either at dispatch or enroute/on approach for various reasons. Granted, CAT II is usually available and can autoland without the redundancy of CAT III systems but my point is that shit breaks, and not just automated systems. We fly without ACARS from time to time because some 'tron somewhere ain't firing right. Or it stops working in flight. Nothing works all the time and everything breaks at inopportune times, and when it's a system you need to ensure 200 people get back on the ground safely, it's a problem. Do you now require a flight to land asap if a system fails in flight just in case the pilot becomes incapacitated and then the jet can't land itself? Seems like there'd be a lot less on time arrivals just knowing how things break in real life. Will aircraft be capable of single pilot ops if everything is working in the near future? Yes, probably soon. It's the "what ifs" and implications of shit breaking in those rare circumstances that push it way out into the future for passenger aircraft IMO.

The real problem here is when the airlines go to single pilot, what is the guy up front going to do for 6 hours at a time? They will lose their buddy to bitch about golf/seniority/contracts/investments/wives to. WHAT WILL THEY DO?!?!? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go look at AFSAS to see how well datalink works

Funny, I actually enjoy the flying because it's so much more chill than flying at the Guard. Nice to kick back, drink my coffee, BS about everything under the sun and watch the states go by. But I totally get what you're saying. I don't particularly relish the idea of teaching TP stalls the rest of my career, but it would make life as a part-timer so much easier. For all the reasons you stated, it seems like it would be a logical fit for a part time force. Well that's their problem right there...6-7 days is right out! 4 maybe 5 days MAX. Yes, once you hit 2nd or 3rd year pay it's a significant pay cut to go out to the guard...even as a narrow body guy. I stick around the Guard because I still enjoy the flying and I love the camaraderie. However, every year we add more shit the Viper that makes it harder and harder to be a part timer. Ya, that would be killer for many bases. Although it would mostly be a problem for T-6s. A lot of bases have close enough and big enough airspace for T-1s and T-38s. Given that each base would only have a small number of classes/students, you wouldn't need alot of airspace. Distance would be killer though.

A 737-800 crashes with 180 people onboard. It was being flown single-pilot. The NTSB determines that having a second pilot onboard would have probably prevented the crash. How many hundreds of millions of dollars will this cost the company in lawsuits, settlements, insurance payouts, stock value, loss of the airframe, etc...? ------ A 99.99% safety rate means Delta Airlines (mainline only) crashes a plane every 4-5 days. If airlines are going to change to single- or no-pilot cockpits, the safety factor will need to be perfect. Not "as good as a Global Hawk".

I am a believer in never say never but I think there is a long, long way to go. I've been flying the 787 for just over a year now and it's a fairly advanced and sophisticated commercial jet. That being said, glitches are common. Some are just irritating like having to do multiple resets on the datalink to get it working prior to departing the gate. Others are significant like the FMS dumping the whole freaking route over the middle of the Pacific. This is highly entertaining when sleep deprived.

I think you are confusing how percentages work. No matter how many points you have, or if you are AD or ARC, a percentage reduction is still the same percentage. The absolute dollar value in discussion will obviously change, depending on how many years you have on AD, or how many points you have in the ARC, but the way I think about it is in percentages. Not sure if you are talking about something different, but your % deltas are all wrong according to how I learned math. AD Old System - 50% retirement AD BRS - 40% retirement This is a 20% reduction in retirement pay, not a 10% reduction. Put differently, 40 is equal to 80 percent of 50. Guard Old System (assume 10 years/3600 points) - 25% retirement Guard BRS System - 20% retirement This is a 20% reduction in retirement pay, not a 5% reduction. 20 is equal to 80 percent of 25. The absolute dollar amounts don't really matter for comparing the two because both are equal to a 20% pay cut in retirement, no matter how many years AD or points in the ARC you have. Plugging real numbers in, assume your high-3 is $100K annual salary AD Old System - $50K/year retirement AD BRS - $40K/year retirement - that's 20% less than $50K per year in retirement Guard Old System - $25K/year retirement Guard BRS - $20K/year retirement - this is 20% less than making $25K/year in retirement. I think we come to the same conclusion - if you are definitely staying for 20, stay in the old system, because you have to make up a 20% per year loss in retirement pay, which would be very difficult even with the TSP matching and years for your investments to grow. If you are definitely getting out before 20, do the BRS. If you're not sure, well, it's time to be decisive.

What guard unit is this?

PIC is incapacitated + aircraft reaches clearance limit fix or fails to make an ACARS position report = autopilot continues either to destination or nearest suitable divert and flies a CAT III autoland to waiting Fire/Rescue. I'm not sure why you think this is such a logical leap. You do realize that 90% of airline flying is all autopilot these days, right? And the savings for a single pilot fleet are basically cutting the pilot labor force in half. I'm sure AA or DAL or UAL would love to keep flying the same volume while cutting their labor costs. As an airline guy, I don't like it either, but to say it's not realistic is a bit short-sighted IMO. FOs are just not as important as we'd like to believe.

It's called title 5. Think technician minus the dual-status part, so no drill or AFTPs, etc. They exist in a limited quantity, for example at Edwards. In my little corner of the guard it comes up every once in a while. Leadership hems and haws about how hard it will be to discipline someone with no Mil rank, as if they'd be hiring dudes from off the street. Hell, it might take ACTUAL leadership to corral them. Also without the additional $30k of mil pay the GS13 pay kinda sucks. Things are gonna have to get a lot worse before title 5 gains traction. It's unfortunate. It would be a good thing but man the system to implement it is limited and leadership is scared shitless of it.

Army already does this for helo pilot training.

If they want retirees back in uniform for this, they will need to find a way to do it without taking away their retiree pay. Otherwise, make them contractors. Otherwise, the financial penalty is just too high for most former military pilots.

Absurd comparison. How many single seat fighter guys are 45 years old let alone 60-65 years old? I get several emails a month telling me about dudes who work at my company that died. Not retirees, current pilots who died. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No but the nightmare scenario(s) we are talking about where the AC is incapacitated, would he/she be able to call for help? Also, when and to what level are you going to let the AI Co/FO override the AC? Who's really flying the jet? When are you going to override the AI Co/FO? It is not the technical feasibility I argue against, it is the squirming can of worms it opens that IMO are not worth the potential savings, which I doubt the Captain would actually see any of in his/her paycheck. I feel like the people pushing this are like Chris Rock in this scene from "I'm gonna git you sucka" How much more can you cut and still have the same service? Why stop at just one pilot? Just put vending machines in lieu of food service by FAs. Sweet talk the FAA on up'ing the number of PAX per FA to 38 from 19, save a buck there too. At some point, you have to accept costs commensurate with the level of service expected / legally / morally required.

Not an airline guy with a dog in this fight, but the medical "drop dead" scenario is such a small risk...how many billions of single seat flight hours point A to B have occurred without the pilot having a heart attack, head exploding, etc? The thought process of another set of eyes/brain to stop a bad situation/decision is probably a better argument, but then again for every single seat accident, I can probably point to a two-pilot accident. With that said, and the systems Buddy talks about exist already, why is it so hard to believe single pilot airliners are a real possibility? It certainly is far more feasible/acceptable/safe than going the 100% RPA route.

No system is foolproof. The determining factor will be risk mitigation for the insurance nerds to say that the cost savings of half the pilot labor force outweighs the risk. My point being that the technology exists right now to have a redundancy in place in case the single pilot is incapacitated. It's not a stretch by any means.

Yeah, we've had a few guys quit. I get it though. I basically have to be on orders for three days for the same amount of money I can make in one morning out and back at FedEx.

I heard it is a option being kicked around right now. Not unprecedented though. A quick Google search yielded this paper from the 80s on the topic: https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a194382.pdf I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Interesting perspective. At my little part of UPT, the reservists are starting to do the math on how much it costs them to come out and do 6-7 days at the unit. Guys are dropping like flies and it ain't gonna get better... Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I've often wondered how it work out if they put UPT into the Guard. Great mission for a part time force, with zero deployments. Highly experienced dudes teaching for years/decades. Haven't even begun to consider the numbers, but you'd clearly be required to have WAY more bases than we do now, as most bases could only handle one airframe. Has RAND or some masters student done a study on this? Probably thousands of reason this is a bad idea...just thinking out loud.

You don't need two assholes up front as it is. Half of the problem on a 73 is the terrible PVI and Boeing's insistence that "Pilots have to flip switches" and panels from the 1960s. You can fly and manage the plane from the left seat. (Oh the horror, the pilot flying might actually have to spin his own heading bug or raise the gear by himself!) I don't get why you think that extra seat would have to be converted to anything. Lots of aircraft have two seats up front but can be flown single pilot. It's not about adding another $150 on the flight, but reducing the labor costs of that extra pilot - which airlines would love. As for being a single point of failure, I think that's like the need for Navigators and Flight engineers. The automation has overcome the need. I think it's a lot more likely that we'll see single pilot ops than full autonomous drone passenger ops, though. People need that warm-fuzzy that some human is in control up front.

FIFY

As opposed to crashes now? Germanwings, EgyptAir, et al are just some where the guy in the cockpit intentionally took paying passengers with him. Run of the mill crashes happen now as well despite having two guys in the cockpit now. Pretty sure the insurance premiums are hefty now. "Reduce" the human error rate, as those seeking automation are claiming, can only reduce those premiums as well. I'm not advocating for this, just acknowledging that it is happening and much research and time/money is being spent on making it happen. The interesting NASA study shows that our own Uncle Sam is opening his wallet to making it happen.

Dream. On.

Just saw a story that Trump asked VADM Robert Harward to take the job, but turned it down. For those that don't know, Harward was a 1 star that Mattis picked to jump up to 3 stars and be his vice at JFCOM. And when Mattis went to CENTCOM, Harward went too and did the deputy deal again. Reputation alone, looks like he was a sound choice. I think that our opponents on the world stage shit a brick upon hearing the name, and are now drunk with relief that he said no thanks. Out

I laugh quite a bit every time I hear AF "pilot shortage". There is no shortage of pilots wanting to fly planes in the AF. There's a shortage of the AF placing those pilots in jobs that allow them to be pilots, and to teach other pilots. There's plenty of bag wearers sitting at group level positions, in staff jobs, at IDE, etc staring at a computer screen. I've flown less than 200 hours a year the last 3 years as an experienced MWS instructor because the AF values keeping the self fellating bureaucratic process running more that it values flight experience. Senior Capts and junior majors are begging to be 'allowed' to get back to teaching the young pilots, only to be told that they're more valued behind a desk. No thanks, see ya, welcome aboard Delta 4962, non stop to Chicago.

that's how i take it too..."hey we can't fix our root problems so let's flood the hiring pool with civilian pilots so our guys have less opportunity to jump ship"

While I don't have first hand knowledge of the what's happening today at USAFA, these articles basically describe the attitude and focus of the AF as a whole. Our culture has gone from combat to corporate. Front line folks still have the right focus, but that seems to be in spite of the overall culture, not a result of it. Depressing to see.

I'm not really thrilled with him, but I'd vote for a mop with a bucket as a VP if it kept her out Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I'll say it, my rep here is shit anyway. Make America Great Again.

Holy shit. It's the internet and someone actually admitted they were wrong and apologized. Soultrain - are you a unicorn?