pawnman

You're making my point. Labor costs are something well within the airline's ability to control, and if they can make that cost zero, they will. You can't fly people around without fuel or jets, but in the not-too-distant future, you can do it without pilots. How many airlines have navs on-board? That's right, they eliminated that position as soon as technology made it possible to do so. To think that any other position on the plane is immune to advancing technology is naive at best. Hell, they'll probably replace the stewardesses with motorized drink carts or vending machines near the toilets, and replace the ticket agents with a kiosk (already in progress). I'm not saying that there are no challenges to this technology, or that every airline will adopt it tomorrow. I'm saying that at some point, those challenges are going to be overcome, and it will be adopted.

I'm talking about AUTOMATING airlines, which is NOT turning them into giant UAVs. Computers would taxi, takeoff, fly, land, and taxi back. The airlines may keep one or two guys on shift to take over from the computers remotely, but I'm not talking about taking the pilots out of the cockpit and putting them in a ground station. I'm talking about taking the pilots out of the loop entirely. Noonin, if your work conditions are that bad, maybe you should call the FAA about the breaches in the regs. Given the focus on pilot fatigue in recent memory, I'm sure they'd be happy to investigate your story. Yes, the training is all done in a sim...how much do the sims cost to install, maintain, and schedule? How much does it cost to pay the pilots for the time they spend in training, the trainers, the computer programmers to write scenarios for the sim, etc? You can claim the pilots are the smallest part of the ticket price, but what does every airline do when they are in financial trouble? Slash jobs, benefits, wages, and hours. They don't sell off planes. As soon as airlines have the capacity, they'll replace the guys up front with HAL.

A lot, when you consider you are paying their salary, training costs, health insurance, retirement benefits, and you have to adhere to crew rest requirements...something computers don't have.

Would you put them in a cab with no driver? How about a train with no driver? It's going to happen...you can be the holdout if you want. It's not going to be saving $5 a ticket, it's going to be substantial savings. And with guys like the JetBlue pilot, the guys who overflew Minneapolis by 100 miles, and (beating a dead horse) 9-11 in the public eye, people will start to wonder if computers aren't more emotionally stable.

Yep. It's all spite and jealousy, not a recognition that technology will keep advancing. ETA: Nevada is now registering automated cars. https://www.kolotv.com/news/headlines/Nevada_Wants_Autonomated_Cars__142715105.html?ref=105 If a computer can navigate around the myriad idiots on the road during rush hour, pedestrians and/or deer jumping out in front of the car, traffic lights and stop signs, and avoid grazing the guardrails, I have high hopes that airplanes, which already have a high level of automation, will be capable of the same thing in the relatively near-future.

I am a trunk monkey, but the solid truth is that the statistics show pilot performance is the big x-factor in mishaps, not mechanical breakdowns. And if the plane were entirely automated, it would prevent any more 9-11s because it would be physically impossible to take the controls...because there wouldn't be any more physical controls. It won't take long. Most of us will probably see the day when it happens. If we can do this for trains, cars, and boats, there is no logical reason we can't do it for planes. Perhaps the pilot-types feel differently because they are the ones in control of the jet...but your average passenger has the same amount of impact on the conduct of the flight whether there's a guy in the cockpit or a computer: none.

Either we have separation of church and state, or we don't. I'm not sure what the context of the reading was...this guy could be one of those douches who can't just stand still and be quiet when the chaplain shows up for a commander's call. But if SOS really is telling people that they'd better go to church, or they are setting a "morally lax" example for their subordinates, it probably is something that should be reviewed. Not everyone goes to church every Sunday, fellas.

Given the number of mishaps chalked up to pilot error versus the number chalked up to system malfunction, I'd happily board a plane without a pilot. It is going to happen, it's just a matter of time and conditioning. The real question is going to be working through the FAA regulations.

Really? You don't think a computer running two subway cars packed full of passengers into each other while they're going 100 MPH is comparable, safety wise? Plus, the car companies are already working towards cars that can drive themselves. If anything, planes are even better suited to automation, since they're unlikely to collide with any obstacles at FL 350.

Interesting that the conservative guy they interviewed thinks this is the military becoming hostile to people who don't approve of gays. Norwich is a private university.

I think it's just something our current generation is nervous about because it is new. There were the same growing pains when airplanes were first put into widespread use...hell, even cars probably had people talking about how much safer a horse-and-carriage was. I have no doubt that this will become widespread in the future, possibly in our lifetimes. If anything, it will be economics, not passenger unease, that drives these decisions (how much does it cost to install a fully automated system capable of communicating with ATC, as well as taxiing in a busy terminal environment?) I think it's just a matter of time until we get the software to a stage where it can make the right decisions on a point A to point B cargo or passenger run. It will probably be a little longer before we can replace human pilots in combat aircraft, since combat is more dynamic than the 0800 ATL-LAX run.

Or a goddamned budget?

It's a nice sentiment...so what actually happened to the whistle-blower? Did the reprimand get removed from his record?

I didn't read any assigned readings, and I was in class. I think you'll do fine with CTRL+F

Jesus MAY have been a rainbow-colored unicorn...since there's no way to prove it, I guess my hypothesis is as valid as hers, right?

It means instead of working 5-6 hours a day like the dweebs in-res, you'll be working 30-45 minutes a day, at a time of your choosing, for the first three weeks.

Well, they've also demanded we leave for the past ten years. So I don't think they're going to get what they are "demanding".

"Doing more queep with less people".

You don't have to show the housing office your dog, just the paperwork. If the paperwork says "boxer", then as far as the housing office knows, you have a boxer. End of story.

I'm sorry that I missed it. It seems like exactly the kind of feedback they kept asking for on the end of course surveys. Hopefully they will read this in the spirit it was written and fix some of the problems with the course.

You really lose something posting it like that...the animations are something to behold.

Wow...either some people really support her, or she planted questions.

Those -135 navs have really questionable taste. The WSOs, on the other hand...

Lighten up, Francis.

On the radio, in the heat of the moment, you're correct. Posting "5-6 guys squirting in every direction" on this message board? Worth a chuckle.