79 replies to this topic

[Gym_Class_Hero]

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Plus, if your a pilot in the cockpit, you face the same consequences to your actions that the pax face. If your on the ground, even if the plane crashes, you'd still be fine. While I'm sure in the event of an emergency the ground pilot will do his best, I'm worried that subconsciously, the knowledge that you won't die may effect your emergency-handling ability. If your in the plane, you'd go down fighting, but on the ground you might be more likely to call the flight a lost cause earlier.

Edited by Da_Frontier_Fan, 16 August 2009 - 12:02 AM.

[David_Lee_Roth]

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Planes can fly themselves, it just:
1. Ain't efficient.
2. Doesn't end up with a smooth landing (survivable, yes, but smooth, not really, it's like being in an airbus).
3. Slower than normal.

I can prove this to you, as well.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Bill Clinton, on Aug 16 2009, 12:01 AM, said:

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Planes can fly themselves, it just:
1. Ain't efficient.
2. Doesn't end up with a smooth landing (survivable, yes, but smooth, not really, it's like being in an airbus).
3. Slower than normal.

I can prove this to you, as well.

UAV's today work (though many do crash), but they are not completely automated, there is still somebody in a bunker somewhere flying the aircraft. No completely AI UAVs exist (at least not to my knowledge).

So if it's not efficient, not as smooth of a ride, and slower, why do it? The only real way to make radical stuff like this efficient/cost effective is to make the aircraft completely AI, and that technology is still in it's infancy. And even if it is proven, the general public will still not accept it.

Edited by Da_Frontier_Fan, 16 August 2009 - 12:09 AM.

[_NW_]

Bill Clinton, on Aug 15 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

NWilkinson, on Aug 15 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

So if you're a pilot controlling an airliner from the ground by a joystick, what do you do if you have an electrical failure or a comm failure and can no longer communicate with the aircraft?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, REFUGE SEEK YOU!

In Soviet Russia, Graves dig you!

Edited by NWilkinson, 16 August 2009 - 12:14 AM.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

In Soviet Russia, hooker pays you (I can get used to that ).

[dolbinau]

Bill Clinton, on Aug 16 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Planes can fly themselves, it just:
1. Ain't efficient.
2. Doesn't end up with a smooth landing (survivable, yes, but smooth, not really, it's like being in an airbus).
3. Slower than normal.

I can prove this to you, as well.

What :-/ ? Airliners 'land themselves' every day and it is fine/smooth. No idea what "It's like being in an Airbus" means.

Edited by dolbinau, 16 August 2009 - 12:19 AM.

[Navy_2]

The reason the military should uses UAV's is cost effectiveness and no risk to the life of the pilot. Mainly because the Predator is primarily used for surveillance and bombing..

It would be nice to have an unmanned commercial airliner, but the airlines and aircraft manufacturers would be taking a huge risk sending a 747-400 with 300+ passengers on a transatlantic flight without any trained pilots on board.

Edited by Multnomah, 16 August 2009 - 01:14 AM.

[fredrick_thy_grt]

Quote

it's like being in an airbus

Ignorance.  

[David_Lee_Roth]

dolbinau, on Aug 16 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Bill Clinton, on Aug 16 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Planes can fly themselves, it just:
1. Ain't efficient.
2. Doesn't end up with a smooth landing (survivable, yes, but smooth, not really, it's like being in an airbus).
3. Slower than normal.

I can prove this to you, as well.

What :-/ ? Airliners 'land themselves' every day and it is fine/smooth. No idea what "It's like being in an Airbus" means.

Without pilot input?

[reyven]

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 16 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Plus, if your a pilot in the cockpit, you face the same consequences to your actions that the pax face. If your on the ground, even if the plane crashes, you'd still be fine. While I'm sure in the event of an emergency the ground pilot will do his best, I'm worried that subconsciously, the knowledge that you won't die may effect your emergency-handling ability. If your in the plane, you'd go down fighting, but on the ground you might be more likely to call the flight a lost cause earlier.

I thought about that and found that Pilots that train in a simulator handle emergency situations almost flawlessly (doing all the right text book procedures) and pilots actually in the cockpit almost 100% of the time are in "Panic" mode and that's just being Human!

IMO The resent Air France crash might have been different if the pilot didn't have to deal with the "On Board" situation. The extreme turbulence, disorientation etc. The fact "His" life isn't threaten makes him more efficient & calmer in an emergency, again IMO.

*Note a Human pilot can still fly a GA aircraft ect. This is Strictly a COMMERCIAL Scenario  

[_haphadon_]

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 16 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Plus, if your a pilot in the cockpit, you face the same consequences to your actions that the pax face. If your on the ground, even if the plane crashes, you'd still be fine. While I'm sure in the event of an emergency the ground pilot will do his best, I'm worried that subconsciously, the knowledge that you won't die may effect your emergency-handling ability. If your in the plane, you'd go down fighting, but on the ground you might be more likely to call the flight a lost cause earlier.

I thought about that and found that Pilots that train in a simulator handle emergency situations almost flawlessly (doing all the right text book procedures) and pilots actually in the cockpit almost 100% of the time are in "Panic" mode and that's just being Human!

IMO The resent Air France crash might have been different if the pilot didn't have to deal with the "On Board" situation. The extreme turbulence, disorientation etc. The fact "His" life isn't threaten makes him more efficient & calmer in an emergency, again IMO.

*Note a Human pilot can still fly a GA aircraft ect. This is Strictly a COMMERCIAL Scenario  

Not really, the pilot would still be stressed a lot because of the fact that he could be the reason for the crash killing whatever many people. Just because he is going to live doesn't matter the passengers are putting just as much stress as if the pilot was in the cockpit.

[reyven]

_haphadon_, on Aug 16 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 16 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Plus, if your a pilot in the cockpit, you face the same consequences to your actions that the pax face. If your on the ground, even if the plane crashes, you'd still be fine. While I'm sure in the event of an emergency the ground pilot will do his best, I'm worried that subconsciously, the knowledge that you won't die may effect your emergency-handling ability. If your in the plane, you'd go down fighting, but on the ground you might be more likely to call the flight a lost cause earlier.

I thought about that and found that Pilots that train in a simulator handle emergency situations almost flawlessly (doing all the right text book procedures) and pilots actually in the cockpit almost 100% of the time are in "Panic" mode and that's just being Human!

IMO The resent Air France crash might have been different if the pilot didn't have to deal with the "On Board" situation. The extreme turbulence, disorientation etc. The fact "His" life isn't threaten makes him more efficient & calmer in an emergency, again IMO.

*Note a Human pilot can still fly a GA aircraft ect. This is Strictly a COMMERCIAL Scenario  

Not really, the pilot would still be stressed a lot because of the fact that he could be the reason for the crash killing whatever many people. Just because he is going to live doesn't matter the passengers are putting just as much stress as if the pilot was in the cockpit.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the ground pilot is going to have a "don't care my life is not in danger" attitude
. Of course he'll be stressed but to a point , not having to deal with the "On Board" situation, G-Forces,  turbulence ect. is a BIG Plus in making the right decision don't you think so ?

[Bell417]

reyven, on Aug 15 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

Pros :
Zero chance of a Hijacking

Not true, virtually nothing is hack-proof.

Also, I think that computers just can't handle highly-unusual emergencies. If it's not in it's "manual", then it won't know what to do and the aircraft is almost certainly doomed.

[George Bush]

Your poll doesn't make sense 'yes or no' isn't the answer to 'pilots in our out of the cockpit'; what am I saying yes or no to pilots in the cockpit or out of the cockpit?

I will never fly in an airplane that doesn't have a pilot sat at the controls for these reasons

1. Variables that man made machines haven't been programmed for ie: hijackers can develop a kind of hardware that can affect these computers, will they ever make a machine that can fly through any combination of freak storms that might come, airport diversions, broken parts, volcano eruption debris in the engine, bird strike and many more. The answer to that question is YES, but what if something happens that the machine hasn't been planned for: that's when you need a human brain to take control.

2. Machines are human made and therefore just as susceptible to human error as humans themselves are. There are dozens of things that can go wrong with machines that aren't even design flaws-fuses, short circuits etc and that isn't just what can be programming issues. Think of how long boeing are taking to develop the 787 because of small flaws-they're taking their time to get it right and I respect that but think if you were going to entrust human lives in machines the amount of problems on the way.

3. Who actually wants machines to take control? NOBODY on this forum, most of us here want to fly.

The fact is computers pretty much do control the flight of a passenger aircraft these days, they can do everything from instrument landings to flying with a control surface failiure. They do the job well and in many cases better than the pilot but you NEED a pilot sat at the front for a reason, there are numerous air crashes still happening due to machine failiure and unpredicted variables and that will not change. The idea has no practicality in my opinion.

Quote

There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.

What emotional factor would stop flying? the only thing I can imagine is the Egypt air flight for whom the pilot crashed the aircraft into the sea saying 'Alahu Akabar' (Allah be praised) 11 times.

Edited by George Bush, 16 August 2009 - 09:19 AM.

[reyven]

George Bush, on Aug 16 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

Your poll doesn't make sense 'yes or no' isn't the answer to 'pilots in our out of the cockpit'; what am I saying yes or no to pilots in the cockpit or out of the cockpit?

I will never fly in an airplane that doesn't have a pilot sat at the controls for these reasons

1. Variables that man made machines haven't been programmed for ie: hijackers can develop a kind of hardware that can affect these computers, will they ever make a machine that can fly through any combination of freak storms that might come, airport diversions, broken parts, volcano eruption debris in the engine, bird strike and many more. The answer to that question is YES, but what if something happens that the machine hasn't been planned for: that's when you need a human brain to take control.

2. Machines are human made and therefore just as susceptible to human error as humans themselves are. There are dozens of things that can go wrong with machines that aren't even design flaws-fuses, short circuits etc and that isn't just what can be programming issues. Think of how long boeing are taking to develop the 787 because of small flaws-they're taking their time to get it right and I respect that but think if you were going to entrust human lives in machines the amount of problems on the way.

3. Who actually wants machines to take control? NOBODY on this forum, most of us here want to fly.

The fact is computers pretty much do control the flight of a passenger aircraft these days, they can do everything from instrument landings to flying with a control surface failiure. They do the job well and in many cases better than the pilot but you NEED a pilot sat at the front for a reason, there are numerous air crashes still happening due to machine failiure and unpredicted variables and that will not change. The idea has no practicality in my opinion.

Quote

There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.

What emotional factor would stop flying? the only thing I can imagine is the Egypt air flight for whom the pilot crashed the aircraft into the sea saying 'Alahu Akabar' (Allah be praised) 11 times.

Well "Mr. Prez" if you had read my initial post you would've seen

Yes- keep them in the cockpit

No-get them out of the cockpit

And this is not a "Man vs Computer" issue! IT's about whether or not "FUTURE" Pilots should fly a Commercial Aircraft from a Ground "cockpit" or from the Aircraft's actual cockpit   

thanks for your contribution.

[fredrick_thy_grt]

ah ..i voted for the wrong one then.

[Anonymous]

unless we come up with a perfect computer that never freezes, this isnt happening anytime soon. convincing passengers to climb on a plane that is completly unmanned would be hard also. and people can see things that computers cant. we can make desicions sometimes quicker too. and what happens if an engine shuts down? then power is lost and no more control

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Along with the possibility of being damaged by earth based computer viruses/radio jammers, think about what can come from the heavens. Solar storms have been known to damage electronics and disrupt radio communication, or even cause blackouts. This is something that must be considered now more than ever, because the sun is entering a period of higher output.

Edited by Da_Frontier_Fan, 16 August 2009 - 11:43 AM.

[reyven]

janikPilot, on Aug 16 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

unless we come up with a perfect computer that never freezes, this isnt happening anytime soon. convincing passengers to climb on a plane that is completly unmanned would be hard also. and people can see things that computers cant. we can make desicions sometimes quicker too. and what happens if an engine shuts down? then power is lost and no more control

(1) On the flip side Humans "Freeze" and even Die as a PIC ! Other than ground maneuvers, T/O & Landing everything else is pretty much "Auto Pilot" <<The dreaded Computer    

(2) I've been on many flights where I never saw the pilots, maybe they crack the door open to deplane.
I heard crash survivors say that they "thought I was gonna die",  "I prayed", "I thought about my family" ect.
I never heard "I had faith in the pilot ... " .
I don't think unmanned flights is a hard sell, it all about adjusting to change .

(3) And what difference would the pilot make with no engine & no control?  

[Gym_Class_Hero]

(1) On the flip side Humans "Freeze" and even Die as a PIC ! Other than ground maneuvers, T/O & Landing everything else is pretty much "Auto Pilot" <<The dreaded Computer    
It's ALWAYS been like that, as long as autopilots have existed. Even on the 707 the majority of the climb, cruise, and descent is in autopilot (though a much simpiler version, play the Captain Sim 707 to see). Why? Because hand flying the whole time is too exhausting.

(2) I've been on many flights where I never saw the pilots, maybe they crack the door open to deplane.
I heard crash survivors say that they "thought I was gonna die",  "I prayed", "I thought about my family" ect.
I never heard "I had faith in the pilot ... " .
I don't think unmanned flights is a hard sell, it all about adjusting to change .
That has a lot to do with all this post-9/11 paranoia. Prior to 9/11 you could even tour the cockpit in flight. It's just human nature to think of your loved ones in a time of danger. They subconciously already have faith in the pilot. On the other hand, why would they trust their lives on a computer, when they can't even trust their computer at home half the time?

Trust me, it will be a VERY hard sell.

(3) And what difference would the pilot make with no engine & no control?  
Anytime you lose engines and control your screwed, man or machine.

Reyven - Your obviously an aviation enthusiast because your on this forum, why do you want this so bad? Don't you have dreams about being an airline pilot?

Edited by Da_Frontier_Fan, 16 August 2009 - 01:31 PM.