Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

[Warrior]

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

What guard unit is this?

[faipmafiaofficial]

1 hour ago, viper154 said:

I don't know anymore than you about the Iran RQ-170 incident, but I can say that RPAs have a very accurate INS system with minimal drift. Easy fix if GPS hacking is what your getting at. You can't control a aircraft from a GPS signal/hack, only make it think somewhere its not. ATC would notice the aircraft is off assigned clearance, or the autopilot would realize the error between the GPS and INS, a GCS would be alerted, and a pilot would take over. I don't like the idea of RPA airliners anymore than the next guy, but I don't thinking hacking really is worth while argument to make. 

Fair enough, like I said I don't know computers I just assumed the technology is there to do it.

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, gearpig said:

Airlines would combine the roles of dispatchers and pilots on the ground. I've met dispatchers who make 6 figures. One "super-dispatcher" would be qualified to fly and dispatch multiple aircraft (12, according to the article below). Technology is expensive, but labor costs are always moreso in the long run.

https://aviationweek.com/technology/nasa-advances-single-pilot-operations-concepts

Why not just combine copilots with the center controllers.  Give them datalinks.  It wouldn't be all that hard to build/send operational missions for each aircraft under their control.  Still have a PIC onboard to monitor systems and handle emergencies/abnormalities/terminal control.

[TreeA10]

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.

[matmacwc]

Go look at AFSAS to see how well datalink works

[Clark Griswold]

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.  

In your example you're combining a "deadman" switch with a branching logic system like the RQ-4 has.

From experience directing the GH, there are some strengths but more weakness than are easily explained here - not trying to be condescending but when you look at all the X factors out there, you quickly go down a rabbit hole of "if thens" that become problematic at best.

It is not that this is impossible but it is not worth it. The amount of money to be saved to actually reduce cost to the customer is minimal and if you want to reduce safety / operational capability to give some VP a bigger bonus - F that.

Let's say you mass deploy this system and multiple aircraft have these AI directed deviations :

In the same airspace, who has priority?

Who assigns that? How will the AI handle see and avoid, WX avoidance, cascading faults or multiple contingencies? What about software issues (upgrades, bugs, sabotage)?

Just an anecdote from the internet but I saw a 100+ million GH saved by a human operator many moons ago when he (not me) commanded a landing when HAL wanted to go around - what HAL didn't know was he was having a computer stroke and the MCs were about to shit the bed. The human had the SA not the machine.

I understand that almost all airline flight in on autopilot on the FMS and routine and uneventful - we pay for the capability to deal with the unlikely but potentially catastrophic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tk1313]

If we really wanted to see how hack-proof our unmanned systems are, we could send a couple RPAs over any type of artificial Islands the Chinese build in International waters, or even the Spratly Islands. Of course we would never actually do that because it's intentionally aggressive and stupid. We could possibly lose our tech to the Chinese, like we haven't done enough of that already... But I definitely think that if there were any flaws to exploit, L337 Ch1n353 h4x0R5 would find them.

Edited February 20, 2017 by tk1313

[Jaded]

Is there a single example of an unmanned craft with the same safety record as, say, a 737? Until there is, isn't this academic?

[the g-man]

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

[Hacker]

12 minutes ago, the g-man said:

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?!?!?

Use the company EFB to surf porn.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Hacker

[HuggyU2]

30 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Use the company EFB to surf porn.

Whoa!... slow down, Trigger.  Not every airline is allowed to have wifi enabled in the cockpit.  

Let's not get too crazy here.  

[Buddy Spike]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

In your example you're combining a "deadman" switch with a branching logic system like the RQ-4 has.

From experience directing the GH, there are some strengths but more weakness than are easily explained here - not trying to be condescending but when you look at all the X factors out there, you quickly go down a rabbit hole of "if thens" that become problematic at best.

It is not that this is impossible but it is not worth it. The amount of money to be saved to actually reduce cost to the customer is minimal and if you want to reduce safety / operational capability to give some VP a bigger bonus - F that.

Let's say you mass deploy this system and multiple aircraft have these AI directed deviations :

In the same airspace, who has priority?

Who assigns that? How will the AI handle see and avoid, WX avoidance, cascading faults or multiple contingencies? What about software issues (upgrades, bugs, sabotage)?

Just an anecdote from the internet but I saw a 100+ million GH saved by a human operator many moons ago when he (not me) commanded a landing when HAL wanted to go around - what HAL didn't know was he was having a computer stroke and the MCs were about to shit the bed. The human had the SA not the machine.

I understand that almost all airline flight in on autopilot on the FMS and routine and uneventful - we pay for the capability to deal with the unlikely but potentially catastrophic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holy shit dude, what?

It's not that complicated.  In the 73, flights over 90 minutes we send position report updates through ACARS.  Let's say the pilot fails to do that because he's incapacitated.  Aircraft (or dispatcher) decides no one is flying and proceeds to the destination or alternate and lands via CAT III.  As for see and avoid and all the other nonsense, this is emergency situation and it does not have to be 100% foolproof (although ADS-B will help).

The technology already exists. I don't know what the RQ-4 has, but I'm not talking about drones. I'm talking exclusively about single pilot ops and addressing your "but what if" questions.  Like it or not, these jets are easily capable of single pilot operations in the very near future. 

[RTB]

1 minute ago, Buddy Spike said:

Holy shit dude, what?

It's not that complicated.  In the 73, flights over 90 minutes we send position report updates through ACARS.  Let's say the pilot fails to do that because he's incapacitated.  Aircraft (or dispatcher) decides no one is flying and proceeds to the destination or alternate and lands via CAT III.  As for see and avoid and all the other nonsense, this is emergency situation and it does not have to be 100% foolproof (although ADS-B will help).

The technology already exists. I don't know what the RQ-4 has, but I'm not talking about drones. I'm talking exclusively about single pilot ops and addressing your "but what if" questions.  Like it or not, these jets are easily capable of single pilot operations in the very near future. 

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.

[ViperMan]

59 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Use the company EFB to surf porn.

(whispered tone) FA #1 to #2: "Janet, would you please tell the captain the intercom is stuck in hot mic!!!"

[HuggyU2]

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".  

Edited February 21, 2017 by HuggyU2

[TreeA10]

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

Whoa!... slow down, Trigger.  Not every airline is allowed to have wifi enabled in the cockpit.  

Let's not get too crazy here.  

No kidding.  The FAA is just starting to allow WiFi to be used in front of the cockpit door due to safety concerns and folks think we're going to be doing single pilot or autonomous aircraft ops in the near future. 

[brabus]

but I don't thinking hacking really is worth while argument to make.

Disagree; cyber security is a massive concern, and the threats are only getting worse as more of our shit is connected to some kind of network (even if only occasionally).  But, can't have any meaningful discussion on this topic via Al Gore's internet.

[SocialD]

3 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

No kidding.  The FAA is just starting to allow WiFi to be used in front of the cockpit door due to safety concerns and folks think we're going to be doing single pilot or autonomous aircraft ops in the near future. 

This...all of this!  The passengers have better access to updated weather than we do.  It's just too dangerous for us to have the moving map and streaming weather on our tablet...  Wifi in the cabin, OK.  Wifi in in the cockpit...FAA loses their minds.  Now you want to change from the surface 2 to the surface 3...Whoa boys, just slow the fuck down!  

[pcola]

I'm starting to think Buddy Spike must be trolling us here. I've got plenty of time in both, single-seat jets and multi-engine heavies. That experience tells me that just because a jet designed for one pilot can be flown well in an emergency situation doesn't mean a multi-engine heavy can also be flown well by a crew of one in an emergency. A compound emergency in dogshit weather and congested airspace with an incapacitated pilot (under this proposed single-pilot construct)? Recipe for disaster, and as many here have pointed out, AI has a lot of growing up to do before the FAA and Airline execs are willing to assume that much risk betting on automation to save the day.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

Holy shit dude, what?

... this is emergency situation and it does not have to be 100% foolproof ...

, these jets are easily capable of single pilot operations in the very near future....

So you are ok with this AI FO not being full proof in the event it has to take the jet and execute a flight plan deviation, arrival to a likely CAT II or III full auto approach, land and autobrake?  That is a holy shit what?

I think I know what you are implying, that this is an emergency and everyone will just get out of the way and let the AI driven jet land and that this will be a rare occurrence, but what if it is not?  The overall effect of these deviations to the flow of traffic in the NAS, especially if these AI diverting jets land at a Class B and shutting down a runway for at least an hour would be huge pain in the ass.

Just because they are capable does not mean they should be.  I bet a senior med school student could pull off simple surgeries unsupervised and would do it for a shit load less than a real doc, does not mean that they should either.

[TreeA10]

12 hours ago, SocialD said:

This...all of this!  The passengers have better access to updated weather than we do.  It's just too dangerous for us to have the moving map and streaming weather on our tablet...  Wifi in the cabin, OK.  Wifi in in the cockpit...FAA loses their minds.  Now you want to change from the surface 2 to the surface 3...Whoa boys, just slow the fuck down!  

There was a rumor that the FAA required the iPad to have a demonstrated ability to survive a rapid decompression at FL600.  Sounds crazy enough to be true.

[SurelySerious]

There was a rumor that the FAA required the iPad to have a demonstrated ability to survive a rapid decompression at FL600.  Sounds crazy enough to be true.

Sounds close enough to what the AF was looking for at EFB spin-up phase that I'd buy it.

[LookieRookie]

6 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Sounds close enough to what the AF was looking for at EFB spin-up phase that I'd buy it.

The AF had testing done for ejection seat EFB in the MB T-38 seat. It didn't stay on and posed a "hazard" with the knee board. Funny thing is in the same report they tested another kneeboard with the IFG and checklist attached to it and came to the same conclusion.

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

There was a rumor that the FAA required the iPad to have a demonstrated ability to survive a rapid decompression at FL600.  Sounds crazy enough to be true.

I believe it.  We are in the process of going completely paperless in the cockpit.  As a contingency we're trying to get approval to use any FAA approved tablet in case ours shit's the bed and we can get a replacement.  So when my shitty ass surface 3 dies, I can pull an iPad (since other carriers have it approved) out of my luggage and finish the day/trip with that.   The fact that it's not just a paperwork issue is beyond me.  I understand the safety side of things, but much like the military, red tape and bureaucracy gets in the way of advancement.  

31 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

The AF had testing done for ejection seat EFB in the MB T-38 seat. It didn't stay on and posed a "hazard" with the knee board. Funny thing is in the same report they tested another kneeboard with the IFG and checklist attached to it and came to the same conclusion.

Have they researched adding a sleeve for an iPad on our G-suits?  Something to allow an iPad to be secured into a sleeve with and open face to allow for use.  In an ejection it shouldn't be an issue.  Something our local AFE shop could add to the suit. I'm sure, much like above it, would take years of research and lawsuits to get it approved.  Meanwhile the warfighter goes with inferior products while the bureaucrats sort it out.  

[TreeA10]

I'm trying to envision single pilot ops on a snowy day with deicing operations in LGA taxing out in the conga line waiting for takeoff and needing to do a wing inspection as you hit the end of your holdover time for the anti-ice as ground is giving taxi instructions from hell stacking up jets all over the airfield.  Wouldn't want to be in the middle of that but I'd pay money to listen in on the radio and watch.  That would be some quality entertainment right there.