Who's Really Flying The Plane?

[Butters]

What do you think would happen to GNEs over the NATs with single pilot ops?

Well they would go down. Who causes most of the GNEs anyway? It is AMC flying old aircraft... the single pilot aircraft would not be C-5 with all but one of the seats removed. They would be new aircraft with lots of cool bells and whistles that would take you across the ocean with ease. It's called data link, a lot of aircraft have it and they get bored crossing the ocean never talking to anyone.

[moosepileit]

Butters,

GNEs come from manual input/edit mistakes crossing clearance changes, also. Yes, if uplinked, fewer of those errors should happen. In my present experience, few changes near coast out are uplinked, so far. Ops procedures and training should prevent all of the GNEs. IF the USAF was the "company" then all of us in all airframes and commands would have been using the same procedures over the years. It's gotten better in the last 6-9 years. Flying it both civilian and military were eye opening differences, regardless of the technology installed and used.

Any pilot union that hasn't inked 2 pilots now, when it's cheaper and easier than it will be when the aircraft are for sale are missing out. I don't see the benefit with aging aircrew and lots of paying passengers and customers, myself. You don't gain payload, you just cut overhead. But, once you can balance paying for the technology, game on.

With the growth in technology, I bet the same, "on the drawing board" single pilot jets can flip a switch and become UAVs. May just need a pilot to handle the taxiing for a while longer than the flying.

Doesn't the 777 already have the deadman installed? on the ND there will be a pop up saying "Pilot Response" and to make that go away the pilots usually twist the heading bug a few degrees. If there is no response a loud alarm is set off. Even on data link, South Africa had me checking in every 30 minutes or so via voice last year, seeming just to prove we were awake.

Edited May 31, 2013 by moosepileit

[Prozac]

Well they would go down. Who causes most of the GNEs anyway? It is AMC flying old aircraft... the single pilot aircraft would not be C-5 with all but one of the seats removed. They would be new aircraft with lots of cool bells and whistles that would take you across the ocean with ease. It's called data link, a lot of aircraft have it and they get bored crossing the ocean never talking to anyone.

Wrongo. As moose stated, GNEs happen because of procedure, not lack of technology. Airlines and the FAA enforce a strict crosschecking regime when it comes to class II navigation. The USAF is miles behind implementing these procedures yet continues to hammer crews for GNEs. Believe it or not, most of the nav and communications equipment in the KC-135 is as good or better than what we have at my company, so it's not case where technology solves all. At the current time, there is still no replacement for a spare brain and set of eyes in the cockpit. That may change at some point but I doubt it will be anytime soon. I am unaware of any airliner in development thatbis being designed for single pilot ops.

[Jaded]

I'm sure it will just take the multi-billion dollar industry a couple of years to fully grasp and implement Butters' TUI masters thesis concepts.

[Butters]

I'm sure it will just take the multi-billion dollar industry a couple of years to fully grasp and implement Butters' TUI masters thesis concepts.

It was Embry Ridiculous jack ass. Get your facts straight.

Funny that you guys saying technology does not fix everything is counter to Airbus's business plan.

[Clark Griswold]

Inevitable I guess.

Remote-controlled passenger flights 5 years away, CEO says

[BFM this]

Inevitable I guess.

Remote-controlled passenger flights 5 years away, CEO says

If we want to go someplace, you'll have an app like Uber. The plane can come to you.

That sounds really convenient. Good thing too, because that prediction of a flying car in every garage from, what, 50 years ago(?) worked out real well. Keep shuckin that snake oil, Mr. CEO.

Edited June 28, 2015 by BFM this

[Clark Griswold]

That sounds really convenient. Good thing too, because that prediction of a flying car in every garage from, what, 50 years ago(?) worked out real well. Keep shuckin that snake oil, Mr. CEO.

I am doubtful of the timeline also but this not so technically ambitious that I can't see it happening in 10 years maybe. Look at the K-MAX UAV cargo helicopter, the initial steps are underway. Don't like it but don't find it unlikely.

[GrndPndr]

I am doubtful of the timeline also but this not so technically ambitious that I can't see it happening in 10 years maybe. Look at the K-MAX UAV cargo helicopter, the initial steps are underway. Don't like it but don't find it unlikely.

Surely you have some pics?

[Clark Griswold]

Surely you have some pics?

[xcraftllc]

Imagine how easy it would be to make a remote-controlled or even fully autonomous train or monorail, but that isn't ever going to happen.

The technology already exists to make fully automated passenger airliner flight (far simpler than the tech that goes into making that K-MAX work too), the issue isn't a technological one, it's a moral one. Two pilots checking each other and the aircraft systems, with their lives just as much at stake as everyone else's is the point.

Even if you had a significant enough portion of the population who was willing to fly on such a jet, could you imagine the outcry and lawsuits that would take place in the event of an incident? It wouldn't even have to be a total-loss crash. A similar argument could be made for cargo planes, since they endanger other peoples lives even if the jet has no one on board. This is the same argument for rail freight. Exceptions like the K-Max are simple; the threat of the chopper crashing into something or someone is pretty low, and the extent of the damage would be limited. It also mostly only effects the military anyway.

Just like flying cars and autonomous cars, it really makes my laugh to see companies throw tons of money at these projects. People can afford to have flying cars, they're called helicopters, you don't see many people flying them because of the safety, financial, and legal limits, not the technology. Watching Dr. Moller and his going-nowhere skycar project is pretty sad. Now seeing Google working on their no-one-is-gonna-buy-those-things-anyway car is just as sad (but also a bit funny).

[Dupe]

Now seeing Google working on their no-one-is-gonna-buy-those-things-anyway car is just as sad (but also a bit funny).

My view: Google is using their self-driving cars to create a very large pile of intellectual property for which they will then use to make a common auto OS. Google isn't dumb.

[M2]

THREAD REVIVAL!

If the Marines can figure this out, then it should be easy for the USAF to do the same...
 

Quote

 

How the Marine Corps is testing a ‘narco-boat’ for resupply efforts

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/09/04/how-the-marine-corps-is-testing-a-narco-boat-for-resupply-efforts/

By Diana Stancy

The U.S. Marine Corps is testing out an autonomous system inspired by a “narco-boat” to bolster resupply efforts, as the service focuses on island hopping and projecting power from land to sea, according to the head of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory.

In addition to delivering two Naval Strike Missiles for the Corps’ anti-ship missile system, the autonomous low-profile vessel the Marine Corps is experimenting with also aims to better get critical supplies like food to forward deployed and distributed Marines, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Simon Doran said at the Defense News Conference on Wednesday.

“Truth be told, this is just a narco-boat,” Doran said. “We stole the idea from friends down south. And so this is 55 feet long, completely autonomous. It’s able to go hundreds or thousands of miles. It’s able to carry weapon systems that we have that are new. … It can carry pretty much anything you want to put in it.”

Inspired by narco-boats, which are used by traffickers to smuggle illicit substances across bodies of water, the unmanned vessel remains close to the water-surface level to cut down on the likelihood of detection as it assists with logistics capabilities.

The service tested the logistics supply drone at the Army’s Project Convergence Capstone in February at Camp Pendleton, California, where the Marine Corps trained a cook in 21 days to operate the system off the islands of Japan.

The Army spearheads the Project Convergence to test out advanced technology and capabilities in modern warfare as part of a joint, multinational exercise.

The autonomous low-profile vessel is particularly important because it allows forces to resupply food, fuel and ammunition without jeopardizing the safety of Marines, Doran said.

“If you have that unit located inside a weapons engagement zone, contested logistics and the ability to maneuver in the littorals becomes key,” Doran said. “And for that, what we’re looking at is trying to acquire systems that we deem risk worthy, meaning that we don’t necessarily want to just waste them, but we’d rather put something in there that’s autonomous, that doesn’t have humans on it that can do some of these higher risk missions without having personnel put in that riskier situation.”

This system is something the Marine Corps wanted “yesterday,” but testing is ongoing, Doran said. The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory received two prototypes in 2023.

The vessel is expected to join the III Marine Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa, Japan, for further evaluation this fall, he said.

The service hopes to purchase the vessels in the next several years, Marine Corps leaders said at the 2023 Defense News Conference.

 

[Swizzle]

So AF repurposes these!?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/07/05/these-4-aircraft-types-are-the-most-common-with-narco-smugglers/

 

Probably really well setup for low level flight, or best NSAV fleet possible...

...or perhaps a good, cheap T-1 substitute!  Complete with TDY fun-kits stuffed into the walls, seats, belly, landing gear, etc..(/s)

Edited September 6 by Swizzle

[Biff_T]

35 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

So AF repurposes these!?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/07/05/these-4-aircraft-types-are-the-most-common-with-narco-smugglers/

 

Probably really well setup for low level flight, or best NSAV fleet possible...

...or perhaps a good, cheap T-1 substitute!  Complete with TDY fun-kits stuffed into the walls, seats, belly, landing gear, etc..(/s)

How can I get that job?   Imagine the parties you'd get invited to.  

[Boomer6]

14 hours ago, M2 said:

THREAD REVIVAL!

If the Marines can figure this out, then it should be easy for the USAF to do the same...
 

 

The Marines have been doing ACE for ~250 years and we're over here in an O-6 circle jerk trying to get approval for hot re-arming in a hot pit area.

[dream big]

4 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

The Marines have been doing ACE for ~250 years and we're over here in an O-6 circle jerk trying to get approval for hot re-arming in a hot pit area.

Not saying we can’t learn from the Marines, and not saying our 0-6 circle jerk isn’t a thing because it actually is, but Marine “ACE” exists solely around supporting the riflemen and CAS; quite different from Air Force ACE which exists to support the air scheme of maneuver from dispersed and unpredictable locations. 

[M2]

3 hours ago, dream big said:

Not saying we can’t learn from the Marines, and not saying our 0-6 circle jerk isn’t a thing because it actually is, but Marine “ACE” exists solely around supporting the riflemen and CAS; quite different from Air Force ACE which exists to support the air scheme of maneuver from dispersed and unpredictable locations. 

I get regurgitating the doctrinal brainwashing everyone gets in PME, but the truth is there is nothing agile "agile" in the USAF's ability to "outpace adversary action through movement and maneuver to achieve commander’s intent." 

And the ACE concept is not as strategic as you think, its goals are fairly operational and in some cases even tactical in nature...

"When applied correctly, ACE complicates the enemy’s targeting process, creates political and operational dilemmas for the enemy, and creates flexibility for friendly forces. To effectively accomplish joint force commander objectives, ACE requires reexamining a wide variety of enabling systems, to include: command and control (C2), logistics under attack, counter-small unmanned aircraft systems, air and missile defense, and offensive and defensive space and cyber capabilities"

For the most part the Air Force has always been more reactive than proactive, and I don't expect that to change in the future no matter how many think tank reports it adopts.   Creating buzzwords (e.g., MCA) and renaming units to "sound more expeditionary" is lipstick on a pig, until Big Blue truly works through the problem and invests in its ability to move quickly and effectively to counter a threat, the results will remain the same (i.e., predictive)...

[SocialD]

I remember when a hot pit location we'd had for decades, was no longer "safe," because of a technicality and the anti-risk mindset.  Until you kill that mindset in leadership, we're going to suck at ACE.  Remember when the CSAF said if I reg doesn't make sense, don't follow it (but work to get it changed)....how many people actually followed through with it?  I'm sure some did, but I'd wager it's a very small percentage.  

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

I remember when a hot pit location we'd had for decades, was no longer "safe," because of a technicality and the anti-risk mindset.  Until you kill that mindset in leadership, we're going to suck at ACE.  Remember when the CSAF said if I reg doesn't make sense, don't follow it (but work to get it changed)....how many people actually followed through with it?  I'm sure some did, but I'd wager it's a very small percentage.  

We'd need actual leaders in leadership positions. 

[Biff_T]

4 hours ago, SocialD said:

how many people actually followed through with it?  I'm...

More than likely around 69 humans.