Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

[viper154]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

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).

 

I have to agree. The crap product the AF/DOD bought for RPAs can do some sweet stuff, but there are a lot of glitches and problems that need a human in the loop. Obviously the commercial sector would have a much better product than what we (mil) are currently using, but what happens when that automated jet hits a flock of birds/has autopilot failure/whatever and someone has to take the plane on a satcom link that has been monitoring 10 other planes and bring it to a safe landing. Anyone in current RPA ops knows the SA of a safety observer running into a GCS as you receive a 9 line and are setting strike posture. They usually have no idea whats going on, are a SA drain on the crew, and can barely make sure you laser and missile are on the right code. 99.9% of the time drone airline flight would be fine, but I just don't think a crew with minimal SA on the ground monitoring multiple jets would be able to step into a no shit Sully situation and save the day. Just my opinion.

Also, we would need to figure out the satcom delay problem for a ground crew not co located at the airport to be able to land in a emergency. I have only done it in the sim, but trying to land a plane on a 1.5 second delay in just about impossible. 

[BCan]

 It will only improve the bottom line for a small time period.  Then the airlines will start cutting ticket prices to capture market share - standard.  So the real benefit is reduced airfare/shipping costs.  How much extra is an airline ticket with two pilots up front?  Honest question...my rough math is about 30ish dollars a ticket...for salary.  I too usually choose the cheapest airfare, but this is one situation I'd pony up the extra cash.

The larger question is economic.  You've got to have people with jobs (or govt provided income - whole other discussion) to by airline tickets, cars, etc.  If we do get to AI/automation as being discussed, it's going to be the political / societal issue of our lifetime IMO.  Just read an article that Elon Musk foresees humanless factories...will not even require factory floor lighting.  We think income inequality is an issue now...

I've also heard little discussion on the bandwidth & infrastructure required.  I've heard zero discussion on vulnerabilities associated.  I'd think technologically advanced countries would certainly be interested in how the entire aviation system is controlled from ground / space assets.  

I think most would agree that using our current UASs as a yardstick for what is feesable for airline travel is a rather poor comparison.  I'll reference the 6-9 emails I get yearly requesting my participation in class A UAS mishaps.

 

[di1630]

Fingers came and talked to us at Misawa.  We asked him that direct question.
He actually said he wanted to lessen it to 8 years active duty..and 6 years in the reserves.  So yes, more years total in commitment.
Allow AF pilots to fly for the Airlines but still hold on to that experience an extra 4 years..
 
Let me know if I'm completely out of line, but having an inherent dangerous job, working 14+ hour days, and flying a jet that requires more skill that working at a desk=should equal more pay. I'm making as much money as a COMM officer (who works half that)?  Doesn't seem right to me. I'm not all about the money and would even take a pay cut at this point to fly for the Airlines as soon as I'm done with my 10.
Don't just patch the problem with $30K plus bonus's at the 10 plus year point after I'm burned out.  

Yep. Hence why when VSP was offered, under compensated pilots tried to leave while overpaid shoe clerks wanted to stay.

I make plenty of money as an O-5 on the bonus..point being that the fact that my flight pay hasn't been updated in 15+ years shows me the USAF doesn't think I require that sort of attention hence, where it values me.

I see airlines upping salaries and actively competing for skills such as mine makes me want to work somewhere I'm appreciated.

What's my motivation to work more hours, get paid the same with less stability for my family?

When I hear stories from friends of working 16 days a month for the same pay, living where I want, no work outside flying....you'd better bring some more incentives to the table. Supply and demand.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BFM this]

Let me know if I'm completely out of line, but having an inherent dangerous job, working 14+ hour days, and flying a jet that requires more skill that working at a desk=should equal more pay. I'm making as much money as a COMM officer (who works half that)?

You asked so, yeah, you're out of line here. Comm officers don't do the same work (danger/personal risk//length/duration/intensity of training) but they also don't get flight pay or the bonus opportunities you have. Does current flight pay/bonus structure cover the value difference of the two jobs? No, I don't think so. But I also don't feel the need to undercut the value position of a career field that I think is dangerously undervalued in terms of emerging threat horizon either.
Our position stands on its own merits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[nsplayr]

Airlines will have a huge downside risk going fully-autonomous, with a very tiny upside.

Think of it this way: the major advantage of current RPAs is that they can be designed from the ground up without humans on board, meaning much longer legs, no life support systems, etc. That is a significant upside compared to a manned ISR/strike platform that burns way more gas for way less stations time. Let alone the decreased risk of losing human life during a crash or to hostile action.

On an airline jet, or any aircraft meant to carry other humans, nearly all of that upside is gone. The plane still needs to have life support systems that support humans. If you still need life support and human-sized interior dimensions for passengers, throwing a pilot in the mix buys you a huge potential upside (saving the day) for very little cost.

Your marginal savings going full autonomous is basically the salary of the pilots, which in the grand scheme of airline operations is a small price to pay to mitigate the existential downside risk of a full-auto plane crashing and killing 200+ paying customers. An airline that suffered from that type of incident would be completely done, especially if their competitors still maintained a pilot on board for safety. Risking billions in profits to save millions in salaries is just stupid enough that hopefully even the most penny-pinching corporation won't try it.

I absolutely think we're going to see single-pilot with a link-override capability to prevent Germanwings-type incidents, since you cut your pilot costs roughly in half but still maintain most of the capability to save the day when the shit hits the fan. But going from 2 to 1 is a much, much different proposition than going from 1 to 0.

Edited February 17, 2017 by nsplayr

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

I absolutely think we're going to see single-pilot with a link-override capability to prevent Germanwings-type incidents, since you cut your pilot costs roughly in half but still maintain most of the capability to save the day when the shit hits the fan. But going from 2 to 1 is a much, much different proposition than going from 1 to 0.

nsplayr johnson brings up some other good points.  Airlines won't do anything unless it absolutely saves them money.  You can bet your ass that if we ever go to single pilot ops, the unions will demand a much higher pay rate to take on such responsibilities.  I think you'd see the union (possibly the FAA) fight our duty time regs...the way we fly now is only doable due to having another pilot to back each other up.  I think this would reduce our duty time available per day...which again would drive up costs.  Factor that into the additional cost to equip the airline with the required systems in the jet and on the ground, and it's hard to see it coming...yet.  Hell, our internal systems are still run on DOS based programs with a circa 1990 GUI to make it easier to use.  AAL doesn't even bother with a GUI...you basically have to write code to input a lot of data there.  Why?   Easier to use on such a complex system, but ultimately it comes down to cost.    

Listen, I was told we'd have hover boards by now...look how that development is going!   They must still be trying to figure out how to get them to work on water.  

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by SocialD

[di1630]

You asked so, yeah, you're out of line here. Comm officers don't do the same work (danger/personal risk//length/duration/intensity of training) but they also don't get flight pay or the bonus opportunities you have. Does current flight pay/bonus structure cover the value difference of the two jobs? No, I don't think so. But I also don't feel the need to undercut the value position of a career field that I think is dangerously undervalued in terms of emerging threat horizon either.
Our position stands on its own merits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

So he's out of line by saying there is a disparity on work vs reward but you admit the current pay does not cover the difference....Where ya going here? I don't think his intent was to marginalized comm.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[ARAMP1]

7 hours ago, di1630 said:

What's my motivation to work more hours, get paid the same with less stability for my family?

 

 

 

[tac airlifter]

which will come first: commercial passenger aircraft with 1 or 0 pilots, or passenger aircraft with an autonomous stewardess function?  

I understand the discussion is centered on pilots, because we're awesome, but there are other potentially autonomous functions that would be cheaper to develop and less risky to implement.  We still have baggage handlers driving baggage carts and real people waving wands when aircraft are pushed back.  Concur that automation is growing and will continue to grow, but we're a loooong ways from pilotless passenger planes.

[TreeA10]

Autonomous ops with pax?  Sitting in an aluminum tube conveyor system with nobody onboard with your best interest in mind or skin in the game is going to be a hard sell.  Also, weather, fuel load, and alternate practicality is divorced from reality on too many flight plans due to laziness and penny pinching. Somebody on scene needs to have the hammer and call bullshit to stupid ideas. 

[fire4effect]

16 hours ago, viperdriver1313 said:

Fingers came and talked to us at Misawa.  We asked him that direct question.

He actually said he wanted to lessen it to 8 years active duty..and 6 years in the reserves.  So yes, more years total in commitment.

Allow AF pilots to fly for the Airlines but still hold on to that experience an extra 4 years..

 

Let me know if I'm completely out of line, but having an inherent dangerous job, working 14+ hour days, and flying a jet that requires more skill that working at a desk=should equal more pay. I'm making as much money as a COMM officer (who works half that)?  Doesn't seem right to me. I'm not all about the money and would even take a pay cut at this point to fly for the Airlines as soon as I'm done with my 10.

Don't just patch the problem with $30K plus bonus's at the 10 plus year point after I'm burned out.  

If airline civilian programs like the PSA programs mentioned become widely available to put someone in an airline seat in 6 years vs 11-12 years on the mil side then not much choice but to adjust fire to compete.

Agree that while autonomous airliners are a long long way off that same technology coupled with the sheer expense of new military aircraft/weapons systems means fewer manned cockpits and a correspondingly smaller number of pilots produced by the military in general going forward.

[sqwatch]

Can't the AF do a year to year bonus?  That way you know immediately if you get a 365 and turn it down and if they try to drop a 365 on you mid term; you can 7-day opt...  you always have the option to separate at the end of your year.  And I don't buy that the military can't match civilian sector pay.  I get congress won't allow it but if we can afford 30 billion a year for 50 years for the f-35, I think we can pay for some experienced pilots to fly it...  hell the helmet costs 350,000 I'm sure we can find some money somewhere to help soften the bed for the takers...

Why would the AF ever offer a bonus without an ADSC? You think that money should come with no strings attached?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

18 hours ago, viperdriver1313 said:

Fingers came and talked to us at Misawa.  We asked him that direct question.

He actually said he wanted to lessen it to 8 years active duty..and 6 years in the reserves.  So yes, more years total in commitment.

Allow AF pilots to fly for the Airlines but still hold on to that experience an extra 4 years..

 

Let me know if I'm completely out of line, but having an inherent dangerous job, working 14+ hour days, and flying a jet that requires more skill that working at a desk=should equal more pay. I'm making as much money as a COMM officer (who works half that)?  Doesn't seem right to me. I'm not all about the money and would even take a pay cut at this point to fly for the Airlines as soon as I'm done with my 10.

Don't just patch the problem with $30K plus bonus's at the 10 plus year point after I'm burned out.  

No, you're not out of line - you're just thinking outside the box (sts). Why is it proper to pay people who do drastically different jobs and accept wildly different levels of risk the same salary? It's acceptable because of the meme that was installed in your brain in whatever commissioning source you came from that "we're all equal."

[HU&W]

25 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

No, you're not out of line - you're just thinking outside the box (sts). Why is it proper to pay people who do drastically different jobs and accept wildly different levels of risk the same salary? It's acceptable because of the meme that was installed in your brain in whatever commissioning source you came from that "we're all equal."

Except doctors.  We're conditioned to accept that we can't recruit/retain them (by specialty) without extremely large bonuses.

[Snooter]

3 hours ago, sqwatch said:

Why would the AF ever offer a bonus without an ADSC? You think that money should come with no strings attached?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I accept a year to year lease on my house, why can't the Air Force offer a year to year bonus?

[HuggyU2]

6 hours ago, joe1234 said:

I'd say we're about prototype plus 20 years out from single/zero pilot ops...

Dream. 

On.  

[Duck]

I accept a year to year lease on my house, why can't the Air Force offer a year to year bonus?

Because that gives way too much bargaining power to the bonus taker. Don't want to do a 365? Great 7-day opt. Don't like those pcs orders? No big deal. They can't force you. The bonus is not to help you out, it's to make sure you are a slave until retirement or twice passed over or RIF, whichever works out best for the Air Force.

Don't get me wrong a year to year would be perfect for those guys who are planning on staying until a better opportunity comes along, I just don't see the AF giving away that much power.

My assumption on how this would play out would be at the end of your 10 year everyone would put out airlines apps, those that got hired by their end of ADSC would separate and go to their new job, everyone else signs 1-year bonus and updates their availability date 1 year later and so on. Perfect safety net for those planning to get out but don't want to slum it at a regional or go unemployed... not as good for a service that relies on ADSC to force people to do stuff that they would up and quit at any other job.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

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?

[Sprkt69]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

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?

I'd be curious as to the costs of the first few lawsuits when reality sets in. 

[brickhistory]

2 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

I'd be curious as to the costs of the first few lawsuits when reality sets in. 

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.

[Sprkt69]

2 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

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.

Yes. Cause then you get to sue a few more people with deep pockets, like those that developed the automation/comm link, etc. 

[Clark Griswold]

58 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

I'd be curious as to the costs of the first few lawsuits when reality sets in. 

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)

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Smokin]

18 hours ago, brickhistory said:

As opposed to crashes now?

Germanwings, EgyptAir, et al are just some where the guy in the cockpit intentionally took paying passengers with him.

Except that the two pilot (or one pilot and one FA during a piss break) system in the US is designed to prevent a Germanwings style incident.  I'd be interested if NASA did this on their own or if any legacy carriers actually want this.  Technically possible and commercially desirable are two completely different things.

[faipmafiaofficial]

I'm no computer guy but wouldn't it be "easy" to hack into a planes computers and do whatever you want with it if there were no pilots on board?

[Buddy Spike]

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

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)

 

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.