Clark Griswold

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.

It's not a problem when everything is going to plan, there are no problems, when that's not the case, that's the problem. If in this hypothetical aircraft you replace one human with a super autopilot certifiable to replace a qualified crew member, what's the cost? It would not surprise me that it would run 2 million (WAG) or more when you factor in everything required to be that reliable, predictable and redundant. That 2 million (plus whatever MX required during its operational life) would also need to be an LRU or the aircraft revertible to a two place crew if HAL is TU. This concept is potentially possible but IMO when you consider the totality of risk, cost, technical requirements and effect on the aviation enterprise, the benefits are actually minimal. You raise good points, I think mine are valid also, I will agree to disagree. But I have to ask, you may be single seat in most fighters, but are you ever alone? I would wager in training and operations, 99.9% of the time you are at least in a two ship, you may not have someone else in the cockpit but you have someone on the wing, you work as a team, just like crew aircraft.

Hmmm - I think that is not a direct analogy. The FE and the NAV were not in command of the aircraft, that has been and should remain the prerogative of the pilot with the back up of his/her Co/FO for a large, purposely built for crew, aircraft. Those positions were automated as their functions/responsibilities were mainly technical in nature and not subjective (sometimes) like the Pilot in Command's where they encounter situations in combination or never addressed by the T.O. or POH and they must call upon the sum of their experience, knowledge and abilities to deal with them. Their is a nuance to human vs machine intelligence that has yet to be adequately coded, the ability to sense context and act accordingly. The conditions may warrant action but how is that action to be taken, immediately or after a few seconds if that overall improves the situation? AI may one day make the better mouse trap and pilot but not yet.

Over 200+ AD IP positions were moved to the Reserves in the mid-90s, the main issue is not the need for a new DAF position for IP, is A1 to realize and believe there is a need for increased MPA to use the Reserves more that are already there. Civilian IPs would come with a new set of work rules to incorporate with the 11-202v3, T-6 regs, AETC regs/sups, local guidance, etc... me thinks it more problematic than getting more MPA

Will have to agree to disagree. The two place modern cockpit is not necessarily for workload reduction (a properly trained crew appropriately using the systems and automation can do that) but it's primarily workload verification. With hundreds of souls sitting just behind the controls, two well trained, qualified pilots reduce the risk rather than relying on only one, IMO. You may be right on the automation reducing the need but I would argue it is still needed. Other communities rely on the two person concept - surgical teams for example - it's a sound concept that does impose an additional but again IMO necessary cost.

Could be just a bit hefty. So you take one pilot out of the cockpit and then what? Put a fare paying passenger up there with him/her? The only way this makes financial sense (ultimately) is to take the space formerly occupied by the FO and re-purpose it for revenue paying passengers which is just a huge not gonna happen for any Aviation Authority in the world. Just a bit of a security risk... Which takes you back to the reality that this really could only happen in an airliner purposely designed for single pilot on-board ops. Look at the layout of the forward cabin / FA station / flight deck lof a 737, 320, CRJ, etc. aircraft, you would have to extensively remodel it to put more meat in new seats to make it worth the while and likely a very pricey remodel, recertification, new insurance costs, new training for all the crew with the loss of the FO, etc... and how long will that payback period be? How long can you afford to have that plane out of service for this remodel? If you built a single pilot airliner, how do you handle departing your flight station for physiological needs? What if HAL goes TU and you are now really single point of failure? There is a reason why we have safety standards in cars, even though we could build them cheaper if we said you don't need seat belts, airbags, brake lights, etc... Greed from the corner office needs a reality check that operations has an associated cost that you can't cut to the bone and expect the same level of service or safety. Rant - Complete (P, CP)

Will post this here but I suggest we take this sidebar conversation on single/automated airliners to a new/another thread: https://aviationweek.com/technology/nasa-advances-single-pilot-operations-concepts So NASA is working on the one butt in the cockpit and one butt on the ground concept. Why hate on the flight deck?

Bummer. I'm a Guard bubba now so unless they want to cut me a 3+ year order which I would gladly take for that tour, I think that ship has sailed for me. If you don't mind, ask your bud how he likes it or PM me his contact info and I'll shoot him an email. I saw this assignment a little over 10 years ago while on AD and then learned of the exchange tour to fly the Canadian tanker, would have been interesting to see how the Canadians pass gas and fly their Airbus 310 based tanker. On the subject of exchange tours, read this one from War is Boring: https://warisboring.com/an-american-pilot-is-flying-with-the-italian-air-force-over-iraq-271fd8def196#.px85mp277

Possibly and I agree with you on a dedicated design being the likely first iteration of partial or fully piloted commercial air travel, I think though the public acceptance of it will happen faster depending on the deployment/success of driverless cars. That will be the great amelioration to automation, if you own a car that is automated or ride in one and overall have a positive experience, that will probably dull your reluctance to autonomous commercial flight. Not for this kid, from my one RPA assignment I was both impressed and sobered to the realities of unmanned flight and I would extend that to all forms of automated (fully) travel. It's great when everything is working and there are no or little deviations to the plan, when that's not the case, everything doesn't necessarily go to shit in 0.69 seconds but it can start to wrap up really fast... Keep people in the loop, use technology as appropriate and don't try to put it into things it was not made for (sts).

True - in this case I think it will be partial automation (single pilot ops) before they go for the full monty. One human in the cockpit, HAL in the right seat and a datalink to another human who could thru another autopilot take control of the jet. That human on the ground will be responsible for intervening on any number of jets linked to an Ops Center for savings in the unlikely event that ground directed intervention is needed. This will satisfy the two pilot regulations until ICAO says one person in the loop is enough. This is the bow wave of history forming, how the hell do we run society when 50% of the population (or more) are automated out of work.

Anyone ever do the CC-150 Polaris exchange tour with Canada?

Their credit is fine (at least the report I saw a year and half ago) but I think the loss on their last house just left them a hole to fill in. They didn't sell their toys, they have a Harley in the carport so I think it drained their available cash from non tax advantaged accounts. My guess is that they are hesitant based on emotion, not faulting them for that. Not sure how much they lost but it stung I'm sure so once bitten twice shy. With their track record of payment and no drama, a modest down payment (3%) and a 15 year agreement the risk seems manageable. I'm interested in selling as I can't tell which way the neighborhood/city is going, it's stable for now but the city is like a lot of cities nowadays, it is getting bled dry of its tax base by the little town(s) right outside the city limits and the services have suffered as a result. The roads are ok but could be better, the schools are ok but the county schools are better, etc...

Question for the forum: I have a rental house and the good renters I have in their now, 18 months renting so far with no complaints, have expressed some interest in buying to my agent/prop. manager. I am considering offering them a rent to own agreement, has anyone done this before? I would prefer a simple sale but the market is slow, my house is towards the upper end of the market in the neighborhood and the good renters I want to turn into buyers took a loss on their previous home and are hesitant on buying again. This seems to be a viable Plan B for all involved, has anyone done this and what was your experience and/or advice?

Stavatti's back: https://warisboring.com/this-weird-little-company-wants-to-build-the-next-a-10-bdfc0bda2b15#.vsopmjc9o

Just grist for the mill but found another concept for a Lead in Trainer / Light Attack aircraft: Rud Aero RA-6 https://rud.aero/our-aircraft/ra-6-multipurpose-jet-aircraft/

You would add points to it thus increasing it if you were collecting it but I have only heard of that as a rare exception and always associated with finance problems. You would not receive your pension for the days you were in Military Status for the Guard/Reserve unit you would be serving with but recieving drill/at/tp/orders pay. That pay status though would be adding to your calculated number of points thus increasing your pension. Clear as mud? Thus why I have always heard this being a pain in the a$$ that is really not done. Retired and collecting an AD pension and continuing to serve in the Guard/Reserve. Not a fighter guy but Brabus' advice is right, if you want to try to fly fighters, make the call now. I am guessing you would be an O-4 / O-5 if you waited and the more rank you get the less likely you are to be assessed by a Guard/Reserve unit without some other skill/qual/cert that makes you more marketable. Not saying it doesn't happen just less likely as there are few billets to slot you in and you effectively jump over dudes in the unit already there. Just curious as I am not completely familiar with FTS in the Naval Reserve but I thought you could apply for a transfer once you were FTS after some period of time? Could you transfer to an FTS job with a unit like VFA-204?

Particularly well said...

Don't worry... they're all green for CBTs... the main problem and I think there should be an LOR given to someone for not having reflective belts on those cadets.

30k and going strong... https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/1070623/u-2-breaks-30000-hour-barrier-in-fight-against-isil.aspx

Say it ain't so... Sidebar question: was there ever any movement to move 10s to Hickam? If operations in the Pacific have to deal with the tyranny of distance, a squadron of 10's in the middle of it (or close to it) would seem to make sense.

One main question and follow on one branching from that... Why put so many core functions / missions of the AF into one MAJCOM (ACC)? Does he believe that one MAJCOM can be responsible for so many different missions, aircraft, systems, etc... and truly allocate resources appropriately when less "sexy" missions like JSTARS, AWACS, RPAs, etc... have to exist in the same MAJCOM with high visibility "silver bullet" or TBTF programs like the F-35?

Won't deny that it has a... unique aesthetic appearance... yeah, let's go with that... but it gets the job done or could if it finds someone to take it home. Unfortunately for Textron-Airland, it's almost closing time and no one is offering a ride home.

Production configuration first flight for Scorpion...

Never do this, no matter how petty and insulting the policy/rule.

B model chalked up an assist... https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/11/f-35b-just-got-lot-deadlier/133379/?oref=d-dontmiss and SECDEF is taking a second look at the C model compared to the AC SH... https://news.usni.org/2017/01/27/mattis-orders-comparison-review-f-35c-advanced-super-hornet