SPO (Single Pilot Operation) sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice, it’s terrible. In an attempt to save money, the cost ends up goes up, and that cost is human lives, system failure, human fatigue, eventually it’ll add up to a situation that technology nor pilot couldn’t correct, resulting in an accident that’ll cost lives. As the old saying goes, “What goes around, comes around.” Captain Joe is right, there should always be two pilots in the cockpit, at all times.
Moreover, the more technology will replace human operators, the more we're going toward a total human unemployment leading to human starvation and extinction. Am I too pessimistic? I hope so, but I'm afraid I'm not
@@vannizaniboni3502That’s not what automation or increased efficiency has ever resulted in, from the invention of fire to the advent of robotic fabrication. Rather more automation results in more human prosperity and more people in the fields of innovation, where humans excel.
There's hundreds of smaller planes that operate single pilot, and there's no issues. There's never been a recorded incident of a single-pilot accident on a passenger-rated plane due to pilot incapacitation. The medical requirements to fly are very strict.
Sully started the RAT b4 the checklist and its on his testimony. there was no dual engine failure at low altitude in the manual. AI works upon learning models, as long as we are willing to have "Disaster in the Hudson" instead of "Miracle on the Hudson" and actuaries determine that payout is worth the savings, it willl come. Similar to outsourcing MCAS software dev to someone who had never seen a pilots seat in any aircraft.
That would be an economic disaster.Nobody would want to fly in a large aircraft anymore. Do they really think we are that stupid ?And is there really a responsible pilot who would go along with that ? Could we still trust such a pilot ? I trust Captain Joe !
I’m just gonna say it; no to both. Firstly, you’d have to get the aircraft certificated for Single Pilot operations not only by EASA but also TCCA and the FAA which is notoriously difficult to do or isn’t allowed by law for aircraft over specific MTOW or PAX. Secondly, people don’t seem to understand that in order to fly high UAVs beyond line of sight requires Ku band level receivers and transmitters, which will basically microwave you if you’re within 25 feet (if I recall correctly. Might be larger area) which means you’re looking at cargo only ops. Finally, even if you’re flying a UAV line of sight, you will have a Go-Around min altitude because by the time the signal goes to the CPU then to the FADEC you’re already on the ground. RQ-4s are notorious for those kinds of incidents mostly because ATC is rarely briefed on their min altitude for Go Arounds.
Get it, you can automate flying with just the captain. What if he gets food poisoning, or simply wants to take a dump and there’s a decompression in the cabin. Who’s gonna make the decision to land, will the captain be able to clean his mess fast and understand the situation in 5 seconds all while he’s in a decompressed washroom of 2x2ft size smelling like rotten bacon and eggs???
Perfect example! If mankind needs 2 humans to control a vehicle in 1 dimension space, how will it control a vehicle in 3 dimension space, plus the limitation that the vehicles can not stop when airborne?
I am a trained computer engineer with a masters degree in automation and control + I was trained as a commercial pilot. Recently while working with AI testing its code-generation ability, I provided the exact same request ( prompt ) and I got four different responses from the AI and the generated code was useful only in one of the cases! Furthermore if people >KNEW< exactly how the autopilots, various control systems and AI work on airplane ( specially the AI ) they would not want to fly in an aluminum tube at near the speed of sound and 11km altitude possibly over a large boy of water controlled only by some AI model. Invest the money and time to train intended to develop reliable AI ( that can match a good pilot's ability ) instead on select people with correct aptitude and attitude ( to fly airplanes ) and then train and support them well. Only non-technical people or those who haven't operated planes in serious weather would make such a suggestion. And YES the pilot's salaries are peanuts compared to the other airline operating costs. I am not claiming that pilots are flawless, there quite a few operators with questionable attitudes and abilities that cause problems ....agreed....BUT eliminating the human element is not the answer. Apart from the question of whether the flying public would accept this. Companies like Airbus would of course push for this...
1. Like all essential systems, two pilots are a necessary safety redundancy in the face of emergencies and failures. They're also uniquely organic (unaffected by software errors, not interfaced with computers). The stakes carrying hundreds of passengers are much higher than a single-seater fighter jet with a seat ejection system. 2. Multiple crew system reduces fatigue and loneliness (not a joke; working in a team tends to make a person not disregard proper procedures), and helps prevent pilot s**cide plane crashes. 3. A two-pilot system makes an excellent training environment for the junior pilot, as well as providing a good opportunity for the senior pilot to develop leadership skills.
Agree 💯 Joe. My gut said a big NO when this idea was first mooted, and you have just articulated the details of my gut feeling in this video. Having watched a huge amount of aviation accident/incident videos where the cockpit crew performed unbelievably under the most challenging of situations, it is incomprehensible that AI could even reach that level of finesse. Your statement about technological advances being an amazing tool are spot-on. That brief shot of a pilot alone in a two-seater airline cockpit made me feel a depressing sense of aloneness - and I'm glad that was one of your points raised. Will be a very sad, and retrogressive path aviation takes if this becomes a reality. Thanks for a great video Joe.
If or when the time comes that there are no human pilots at the controls of airplanes, I personally will never set my foot on board of an aircraft! People have gone nuts with their wet dreams of "artificial intelligence" which, in fact, is not an intelligence at all but rather sophisticated pre-programmed computer actions.
Excellent video Joe! My career has been in the railway industry, where automation has made a driver obsolete, with appropriate safety levels, since the 1970s. Why? Because trains only have 2 degrees of freedom, and they are on the ground. When the automation detects a potential unsafe condition, it simply stops the train. Unfortunately, airline/aircraft corporate executives and accountants, not skilled in the technical aspects, believe that the same logic can be applied to aircraft, which have 3 degrees of freedom, and you can't just stop the plane when something goes wrong. Joe briefly mentioned public acceptance of OPO and NPO. That has been the biggest hurdle for trains. Many rail transit authorities around the world keep a person on board, not doing much other than opening and closing doors, just to please the public. The "driver" you see sitting in the cab is not driving the train; there only to make you, the riding public, feel better. We're just getting to the point where autonomous cars are starting to become accepted by some members of the public. It will be a long time before the general public accepts flying with one or no pilot.
When sh*t hits the fan, any plea by a distressed pilot to automation for assistance will be met with something along the lines of the famous quote by HAL 9000 in 2001 "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.". On a side note, these CEO's that are pushing the no-pilot-in-the-cockpit idea, would they want their private jets to fly as such with their a$$ in them?
Airbus is really pressing their luck with this, “Single Pilot Operation”. What if in the future there’s a single pilot (on a shorter flight), and that pilot becomes incapacitated (like suffering a heart attack), then that flight is SOL. There should always be an emergency pilot on board just in case.
IMHO one of the drivers for SPO is not as much cost reduction as it is about pilot shortage. The increasing need for pilots is obvious as many more are getting out of the profession than are entering while more and more planes are operating on more and more connections. SPO will not halve the need of pilots, but the mismatch between demand for pilots and available pilots is lessened. But all of your arguments against SPO or No Pilot scenarios are in my mind absolutely right and SPO is also incredibly shortsighted as SPO is basically requiring an all Captain rank pilot staff - How are younger pilots going to be climbing up the ladder? SPO will may be in short term fix the shortage issue, but I fear will ultimately doom the industry
This subject crosses my mind as a student pilot with experience in A.I. @Captain Joe covers the core areas of concern really well here. I think single pilot ops is a scary prospect
1979 - 1980 war ich vor meinem Studium Purser bei Lufthansa. Auf der 707 wurden die Navigatoren eingespart, die 747 wurde gerade eingeführt und auf meinen Mustern hatte die 727 noch den Flugingenieur, aber die kleine „Bobby Boeing“ flog mit zwei Piloten. Da kam dann beim fliegenden Personal der folgende Witz auf: Lufthansa spart jetzt alle Piloten ein, ein Computer fliegt den Flieger alleine. Nach dem Start kommt die Ansage an die Passagiere: „Guten Tag auf unserem modernen Flugzeug ohne Piloten, ich bin Ihr Bordcomputer und werde Sie schnell und sicher ans Ziel bringen. Sie brauchen sich keine Sorge zu machen, ich bin so programmiert worden, dass ich keine Fehler machen kann……….. Keine Fehler machen kann……… Keine Fehler machen kann…….“
I was going to make a rather long winded comment here, but I think you hit most of the points I would make, so I will stick to the high points...Pilot incapacitation is a real thing, and perhaps more common than we'd like to believe. My recommended video list is currently showing several recorded ATC conversations involving an incapacitated pilot. Incapacitation doesn't always have to be severe. I case of the flu, or even food poisoning can render a pilot unfit, particularly if they have nobody to assist them or notice their mistakes.....nor can you fly a plane from the lavatory. Further, there have been several cases of pilot suicide. While having a second pilot hasn't prevented all of these tragic incidents, it has prevented some, and, in fact, we'll never know how many incidents were prevented by having another pilot handy. Finally, computers have always impressed me with their ability to take orders, I'm not as convinced with their ability to creatively give them. Most emergency situations are at least somewhat unique, and computers have never been particularly good at dealing with situations they weren't programmed for. Fortunately, major emergencies are rare, but when they occur, I doubt you'll find a pilot who isn't glad there are two sets of hands in the cockpit, and in certain cases, happy to have three or four. I'm sure the late Capt. Al Haynes would agree.
I vividly remember when I was in school for aircraft around 2000 era, all the talk was about how pilots in military and civil aircraft would become a thing of the past very soon. However, people feel alot more safe with an actual person flying and that's why it never happened from what I could always see.
I remember reading this saying as a child in the 80s, "To err is human. To really screw things up, you need a computer." Automated single/no pilot airplanes would be a hard pass for me. I'd need to have a lot more confidence in the programming.
I think that there is probably a generational difference in how this is viewed. As a boomer, I say, no way (I work in technology and with AI and know how problematic it can be, who wants the AI autopilot to hallucinate ). My youngest son however inherently trusts computers over humans. He says things like “they don’t get tired”, “they never miss a reading “… etc. even in the scenarios of handling the unexpected, computers are not subject to the startle factor and begin making corrections long before a human could. He and I often debate this (like I am certain many reading this will want to). My point isn’t who is right, but rather, different generations likely view this very differently (as a generalization).
Shows how young he is. Blindly trusting technology is wrong. Using technology as a tool is perfect exactly for the reasons you mentioned (no tiredness, precision, etc.).
They’ll never go to 0 pilot. The one thing my captain friend tells me that the job isn’t even flying the plane. It’s commanding and dealing with passengers and crew, planning, and problem solving before the plane even leads the ground. At least in passenger airlines
It's about when things go wrong, not when things go right. A well trained human brain is no match for a computer. It's also the reason pilots should be well paid - you're paying them for when things go wrong, not for all the 'easy/boring' bits. Managers have NFI in this regard.
Wouldn't it be better to figure out how to do away with stewardesses first? Robo servants of some sort? Maybe pneumatic tubes to deliver food and drink? I mean all the seats are lined up already. One tube in each side and a clever robot in back could send things forward to multiple people rows at once.
Flight attendants are safety officers on the aircraft, not there just to give you your drink, but there to make sure that in the event of an emergency, you prepare for the emergency and can evacuate the aircraft swiftly if needed.
I am a retired airline pilot and have been flying since 1971. I doubt less than 2 pilots will happen in my lifetime. But when it can be shown that it is safer to fly without pilots, we will have airlines flying with 1 or zero pilots. Today most accidents are caused by pilots and not airplanes. The biggest challenge will be public acceptance. People in the 1920s would think flying 400 people across the would be unthinkable. We cannot even imagine what we will be doing in 50 to 100 years. In 1970 we could not Imagine even smart phones. People might not even be able drive a car in 100 years. How many know how to drive a horse and buggy today? 16:24
I knew it would be Airbus to push this first. My reasoning is the use of Fly-by-Wire. You get so much automation data from thousands of daily usage of it that it's natural to try to automate it even more. IMO I think it's a fair test, on long haul flights, to try 3 pilots instead of 4
Of course the airplane can fly itself.... But it comes with a price and a high risk. When we have plane incidents, it is because things are abnormal, the holes in the cheese match each other. I think both AI and a remote "pilot" on the ground will create more and bigger holes in the cheese and increase the risk of accidents. Airplane incidents often have a prior history, which can be difficult to observe if "pilot" are not present personally in the cockpit and not have been involved in the entire flight envelop. A cockpit work environment can be busy, even during a full normal flight. Sudden incidents require two pilots present to handle this. There must be two pilots in a cockpit to catch dangerous routines, stupid decisions and to make the right decisions. If there are only a single pilot in the cockpit, then there is a high risk that the pilot will get tired and fall asleep, Pilots must have company / counterpart, How will the pilots' skills be if automatics take more and more of the flight?. Remember outcome of many Flight incident has had a lucky outcome because the pilots have good flying skills, it's that simple fly the plane with the remaning functioning systems availble, Do you think AI can figure this out?
SPO: just imagine a severe Birdstrike. Plane crashes, because the Pilot was not able to work on the Problem and had no time to call Mayday and ask the Dispatcher helping him with remote control to fly the plane, retract landing Gear, setting Flaps, shut down the Engine, extinguish the Fire, and set a safe Course all the same time in 800ft AGL. Unlikely? well, it happend several times on SPO Aircrafts...
Im 14 years old, and im about to start flight school, and i hope to fly for United Airlines on the 787. I have had this question on my mind for a while. I really hope pilot less aircraft don't ever take off.
The day they eliminate pilots I'm not flying ever again. I work in medical devices (robotic surgery) and there's no freaking way I would EVER trust a system without redundancy.
While almost all of your rant's arguments may be perfectly on point, I miss your reflection on an even greater timescale. Just about the same arguments were brought forward by yesterday's seasoned pilots when removing the *navigator* ; again decades later when removing the *flight* *engineer* . Today, you are that seasoned pilot, and I admire your knowledge, your dedication and your top-notch level of professionalism. Yet I didn't hear a single word about you wanting the flight engineer back. I'd be more than happy to learn about your thoughts on that.
I agree with your opinion Joe, but it seems they are specifically targeting the aviation industry to reduce the number of pilots. Why don’t they apply the same approach to the cruise industry? 🚢 The moment they introduce single-pilot operations or no pilots at all will be the moment I stop flying as a passenger!
Just recently got my Commercial Multi-Engine rating, ready to gain my hours to get to the airlines! If we get to an era with no pilots, what am I, as well as other future pilots, going to do??
I predict that we will move to fully autonomous airliners within 20 years, probably with drone pilots on the ground as backups for a decade or so until full confidence is gained in the fully autonomous airliners.
These simpletons think computers are incorruptible 😂.... This folks is the classic case of "fool me one, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on... shame on you". Of course we know none of these 'CEOs' will never fly on one of those "autonomous" equivalent of human carrying drones.
It’s worth pointing out that even in Single Pilot Ops if a ground based dispatcher has the ability to remotely connect to an aircraft - so does a hacker. As a proof of technological integrity the suits making these decisions should volunteer themselves to go for a test flight on the premise that legitimate terrorist hackers have been to offered eye watering rewards for cracking into the system and taking control. No takers? Didn’t think so.
Wie lange arbeitet man jetzt schon am autonomen Fahren? Es klappt solange, bis irgendwo eine Baustelle auftaucht, ein blöde reflektirendes Schild steht, ein LKW über die querende Brücke fährt oder ein Karton auf der Fahrbahn liegt. Oder einfach nur etwas Nebel ist ("Frontkamera ausgefallen") Wie will man einer KI >10.000h Flugerfahrung beibringen? Wie bringt man ihr bei richtig zu reagieren? Mal eben, sofern überhaupt noch vorhanden, FDR-Daten von Unfällen und glücklichen Ausgängen aufpielen wird da eher nicht funktionieren. Was ein Pilot in seinen Jahren im Kopf abgespeichert hat lässt sich nicht transferieren. Wie soll ein Remote-Pilot im Notfall eingreifen? Hat der dann Force-Feedback fürs das Popometer und kann er wirklich ALLES fernbedienen? Und beim Thema KI besorgt mich vor allem: WER bringt ihr alles bei? Erfahrene Menschen oder Schreibtischtäter? Airbus und Boeing sind voll von Negativbeispielen. Und was mit derzeitigen KIs passiert, die von der aktuellen Gesellschaft mit "Daten" gefüttert werden, das möchte ich bitte nicht erleben...
I doubt that pilots are getting reduced in the cockpit. Considering how the same people advocating for single pilot operations are trying to implement ground dispatchers to assist the captain in their duties already sound like they still need a second pilot in the cockpit. And leaving one single person at the controls of a plane sounds like a very good idea, all I am going to say is German Wings Flight 9525
A single pilot does the papers work, brief crews. check the aircraft (tires, damaged, oil leak etc etc) goes up to cockpit and fill the routing data, greets passengers....... Oh man, there's a lot to mention here. SPO is a terrible idea.
I guess this kind of technology will become implemented one day in future, but not the next 15 years. the technology is simply not up to the task YET. So, keep flying Cpt Joe, and as always, great video as usual! Greets from LSZG.
In my opinion flying cargo in remote areas is feasable. Flying in dangerous areas would interesting. If one pilot gets ill. You could share the workload with an operator at the ground or getting support from better computer assistents. You don't have to solve the whole problem. Flying people around with an AI pilot, I don't think so.
So the only reason airbus wants to keep 1 pilot around is because if something goes wrong they have someone to blame. "PILOT ERROR" It's a huge risk for aircraft manufacturers to develop and sell fully autonomous aircraft because if/when they go down(and they will) , the lawsuits alone will shut them down for good as they bleed money.
So grateful for this video, it really cleared my mind on that topic. Ive just turned 17 and I want to be a pilot so bad. And my only real concern is that, if im finished with my school and flight school, let's say that's in 6 years, and I start my job at an airline I don't want to be kciked out due to AI replacing me after just a couple of years in my dream job. It wouldnt be worth the struggle and financial risk I had put myself into to make my dream come true. I completely agree with you on those topics, but if we take in consideration of far AI has come in the last years, Im quite frankly worried what will be in the next decade. I mean what if AI is capable of problem solving? Is that really that far in the future? Havent we thought AI wouldnt be a thing till maybe 2040? Liebe Grüße aus München
Most pilots don't do much of anything once they press the autopilot button. The average salary of a commercial airline pilot is $250 to $500k a year. Why not eliminate that cost if automation is just as safe? I support having one pilot. There are many smaller GA passenger-rated planes that operate single pilot without any issues.
Thanks Joe very thought provoking video,i personally would not fly on a single or non pilot flight.As humans i believe we like to put our faith in the 2 humans at the flight deck who as humans arent going to do anything to risk getting home to their loved ones,plus theres a level of pride for a job well done,that i believe technology cant embrace,we humans are very special people,lets not forget that Kym Adelaide
The EASA will approve this. But I see this not being approved in the USA….FAA takes on average 30 months to fix things, I bet it will take years. And I hope that’s the case bc I do not want to be the only pilot of an airliner. I know many other professionals in the industry that are strongly against single pilot operations
It's all for profit. There's no reason to spend more time diving deeper because that's all it is: money. If airlines didn't lose so much money in payouts, PR, lost of hardware, etc in every crash, they would have been down to 1 pilot years ago
Anecdotally, it is argued that businesses do NOT invest in IT Security; representing that paying the damages is LESS THAN the cost of the IT Security software and processes....... Just 'food for thought' (...and a truly frightening premise ... ONE pilot!?!?!? smh)
I believe that one important aspect of single piloting future has been miss diagnosis in this video. An airplane and its system wont be same as it is now. huge design and technology improvements will be implemented on new generation airplanes. We cannot explain the issues by looking at today’s airplanes….
I’m all for technology but my brain cannot phantom a commercial flight having only one pilot, even more no pilots at all. I leave that dilemma to my kids and grandkids generations! 😂
SPO will not work because if the computer can replace redundancy, why should it not be able to fly all by itself at that point? Especially if it needs to recognise mistakes, would probably be easier to let it just do its thing at that point.
A plane that flies itself fully on it's own from gate to gate? Yeah thats coming. But not even a pilot sitting there overseeing it and ready to take over in the event of a failure? yeah thats not happening. They wouldn't sell a single ticket. I'm just starting my training and a fully automated aircraft could definirtely happen within my career. It's a sad time man. I often find myself wishing I was born a lot earlier so i could've been a pilot in the "golden age"
Tbh we all know with how advanced aircrafts have become where they could do a journey entirely on autopilot. But as a passenger would you board a flight with no captain or first officer and have trust in a computer?? I bet a large percentage would say no
-1 pilot and you will get way more accidents like German wings in France. -2. Just check how American self-driving cars experiment is going. I will never buy a ticket on a plane with no pilots. I could write a lot of things about AI, but I won't do it, because it's a different topic. It's not as good as tech companies are trying to show you
Nice rant, but regarding safety I rather prefer machines over human beings. And besides that, I am old enough to remember the exact same arguments when the flight engineers were replaced by better planes... 😉
We are not going to be able to prevent this reality. It will happen, passengers will come to trust autonomous airplanes just as they have come to trust multitude of other autonomous technologies. We are only angry about this because it is finally happening to us pilots. We hardly put up a flight when all those other positions were lost, who are we to think others will come to our aide now that it’s our turn to become obsolete?
Until the machine can do it all better than human, and handle any situation, even those reacquiring creativity and "inventing" a solution on the go - and have full redundancy at the same time this is nuts. If you *need* ONE human, you need TWO, simply because we can get get very ill or die without warning, regardless of the medical class and we got, and how long since last medical. ONE may be enough for cargo flights over unpopulated areas, where you assume that ground risk is small. We can fly single-pilot operations is small planes, not huge planes and/or hundreds of passengers.
This will absolutely happen and will happen sooner than we think. There is no doubt that fully automated airliners will increase air safety. Look at how reliable and capable rockets have become and they are fully automated. They aren’t yet fully autonomous, but that will come.
Currently, when an airliner lands itself, every plane at the airport has to stay far away from the runway to make sure they don’t interfere with the ILS signal, and then the plane slams itself down somewhere on the runway and then the pilots still have to use the reverse thrust manually and steer the plane. So yeah I don’t know about them being fully automated soon.
@ ILS is antiquated. Autonomous landings will likely use GPS in the future or a more modern guidance system. Then critical area protection will not be an issue.
I just got my commercial pilots license last month and finishing multi engine training and I’m not worried at all lol give it 6 - 12 months of single or no pilot flights there will be a higher rate of accidents and paying customers will wise up pretty quickly and avoid it like the plague and it will be a financial disaster for investors of this system and airlines alike … not to mention a loss of life……….. don’t get me wrong one day in the future I don’t doubt planes will fly themselves but I don’t believe any time soon
I was told in the cockpit there will be a man a dog the man is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to stop the man touching anything. Imo you will always need a pilot when you need a pilot miracle on the Hudson proves that. Also a single pilot is a bad idea.
I mean, this happens all the time as humanity progresses. Certain jobs become obsolete...new types of jobs are created. It is what it is. That said, as of right now in 2024, I would still prefer to have at least one actual human up in the cockpit. But, as technology advances over the coming years, I may very well feel differently at some point and be totally OK with no humans up there at all.
Don't let software developers grind you down! Don't let them bully you with accusations that you're holding back progress by not letting them run your life. Of course they have absolute faith in their work - so did Dr Frankenstein - but that's no reason to think that anyone else should. So let them mock us as stick-in-the-mud Luddites, as dinosaurs; we shouldn't be afraid to ignore their taunts. They understand their subject but not the realities of its application. Whether it's cars on the road or planes in the air, passengers need to know that they've not been reduced to the level of cargo. Incredibly, people in the United States have already been reduced to the status of guinea pigs. Someone with a lot of money allegedly made some phone calls and allegedly pulled some strings (and allegedly made some threats?) and suddenly authorities allowed semi-autonomous cars free access to public roads. That is an OUTRAGE! A scandal! Think about it! Beta-testing flawed software on real people is a disgrace! So let's not have it happen in international airspace, too. Cars and planes should be operated by 'systems' with an equal amount to lose as the passengers they're carrying when things go wrong. Our primate-derived survival instincts and self-preservation reflexes have had millions of years of real-world R&D to get to where they are now. Machines don't care. They can be programmed to appear to care, but they won't care about life until they themselves are living. No, not appearing to be living - LIVING. Big difference. Huge. Until we can create living machines, we should continue to rely on a system involving multiple levels of human redundancy for our safety. We matter because we care. We don't appear to care; we actually do care. Software developers seem to think that they can bypass all the tedious 'life' business and cut straight to their shiny Star Trek Futurama visions of tomorrow. Well, they can, it's a free world - but only if that tomorrow remains a personal, private thing and doesn't involve you, me, or anybody else. I think only a deluded minority would be willing to trust their lives to some maniac's Full Self-Crashing algorithms. Cough, cough, Muskrat, ahem, Tesla, harrumph... Whatever happened to the idea of multiple redundancy for safety-critical systems on commercial aircraft? If it applies to electrics and hydraulics, it should apply to the primary guidance system, too. So... two pilots, minimum, please. Two pilots under all circumstances. No exceptions. If your plane is carrying real people, those people need to know that there are at least two other people on board with as much invested in the flight as they have. Family, friends, life commitments - all the boring, messy stuff that software developers spend so much time bypassing in their search for stability. No machine, however 'artificially intelligent' will ever care as much as a human about tomorrow. If it did, it'd be human, so why try to replace us with something demonstrably inferior? I suspect that any airline which manages to squeeze solo-pilot or remote-pilot operations past the regulators will find itself short of paying passengers. Carrying inert cargo doesn't make reduced pilot involvement any more attractive. True, there are fewer lives on board at risk, but who wants 200 tons of out-of-control cargo plane falling onto their town? I can see no way to justify this possible 'advance' in operational efficiency. Just because something can be done is not a good enough justification for doing it. The system is not broken. It doesn't need fixing. I wonder how many billiionaires would trust their lives to such 'reduced pilot' technology. Would Ego Muskrat REALLY convert his business jet to semi-automatic or fully autonomous operation, with all the risk of a software glitch spoiling his day, or would he expect there to be two or more real pilots in the cockpit at all times? Have you noticed that the US President's plane - Air Force One, a Boeing 747 - has FOUR engines? Not two, four. The military likes quads, too. Four props, four jets. Mmmm, sweet, sweet redundancy. All commercial airliners equipped with just two engines are capable of flying on one should the other fail, but... Why would a mere (easily replaced) Head of State require more redundancy than Bob, Sue and the kids jetting off to Spain for a week? Don't their lives matter as much? No? Says who? Aren't 2 engines good enough for a VIP flight? Who decided that? How many pilots are there on Air Force One? Two? Three? Five? Why's that? Would a US president trust his life and position to an aircraft with no redundancy of its key systems? To a plane flown remotely like a combat drone or by a single pilot who might or might not have a bad enough day to decide to end it all? If not, nobody should expect any of the rest of us to do so, either. That goes for autonomous cars on the road, too. Single-pilot commercial airliners and remote-controlled 'drone' flights will certainly change the face of aviation. They'll destroy it, because no sane person would willingly get on board a jet without a full complement of sober, skilled pilots and crew. Every aviation accident provides vital data and improves the overall safety of future operations. Progress via tragedy. Currently, things are pretty good, safety-per-million-miles-flown-wise. It'd be ridiculous to throw away all that painstakingly gathered information to start from scratch when there's no sensible reason for making drastic changes anyway. If software developers, airline accountants and daydreaming billionaires think that reducing pilot numbers and introducing autonomy is the answer, they haven't understood the question.
I can tell you that , I've often promised my laptop , that I will give it flying lesson's. Now say hello to Ur new pilot 😂😂 it's my laptop , 😂😂 it's annoyed me enough that the flying lessons have paid off. Positive AI CAN be used to do the captain voice over . 😂😂😂
Even if they made the airplanes automated, I don't believe the airlines would pass on the 'cost savings' to the consumer anyway. So I don't see any benefit in removing the pilots purely on an economic point.
Well, i for one dot think this is gonna be viable, safety is of paramount importance in our field and certainly cannot be compromised for any reason whatsoever. Profit margins will always change, but safety margins are the primary! Sadly, nobody takes a Pilot's opinion seriously on this topic coz they falsely assume that all we're trying to do is prove a point to save our jobs🤷🤷🤷
Sorry for my thousands dollar ticket, i find safety to the fact that a pilot is doing their best to fly as they will go down with me if something goes wrong
Germanwings flight whatever the fuck. Suicidal pilots? Passenger fear? Absolutely not. It’s up to us to fight company greed so that our sons will be able to be pilots without worrying about job security (at least not at a level 2x as bad as we have it on our worse years)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Im telling you right now that if airlines start adopting planes without pilots, i will never set foot on a commercial plane ever again
It won’t matter as plenty of others will as airline travel gets both safer and less expensive with autonomous airliners.
Same
Planes are already 99% automated. You just didn't know it.
@ doesn’t matter, a plane with no human pilot is a software error away from disaster
@ And planes with human pilots are a pilot error away from disaster. What’s your point?
SPO (Single Pilot Operation) sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice, it’s terrible. In an attempt to save money, the cost ends up goes up, and that cost is human lives, system failure, human fatigue, eventually it’ll add up to a situation that technology nor pilot couldn’t correct, resulting in an accident that’ll cost lives. As the old saying goes, “What goes around, comes around.” Captain Joe is right, there should always be two pilots in the cockpit, at all times.
Moreover, the more technology will replace human operators, the more we're going toward a total human unemployment leading to human starvation and extinction.
Am I too pessimistic? I hope so, but I'm afraid I'm not
@@vannizaniboni3502That’s not what automation or increased efficiency has ever resulted in, from the invention of fire to the advent of robotic fabrication. Rather more automation results in more human prosperity and more people in the fields of innovation, where humans excel.
There's hundreds of smaller planes that operate single pilot, and there's no issues. There's never been a recorded incident of a single-pilot accident on a passenger-rated plane due to pilot incapacitation. The medical requirements to fly are very strict.
@@PatrickDuffy-u3s ummmmm...... th-cam.com/video/GrI0xH1rssc/w-d-xo.html
Sully started the RAT b4 the checklist and its on his testimony. there was no dual engine failure at low altitude in the manual. AI works upon learning models, as long as we are willing to have "Disaster in the Hudson" instead of "Miracle on the Hudson" and actuaries determine that payout is worth the savings, it willl come. Similar to outsourcing MCAS software dev to someone who had never seen a pilots seat in any aircraft.
"You spent so much time wondering if you could, you never stopped to think if you should." - Jurassic Park
That would be an economic disaster.Nobody would want to fly in a large aircraft anymore. Do they really think we are that stupid ?And is there really a responsible pilot who would go along with that ? Could we still trust such a pilot ? I trust Captain Joe !
I’m just gonna say it; no to both. Firstly, you’d have to get the aircraft certificated for Single Pilot operations not only by EASA but also TCCA and the FAA which is notoriously difficult to do or isn’t allowed by law for aircraft over specific MTOW or PAX. Secondly, people don’t seem to understand that in order to fly high UAVs beyond line of sight requires Ku band level receivers and transmitters, which will basically microwave you if you’re within 25 feet (if I recall correctly. Might be larger area) which means you’re looking at cargo only ops. Finally, even if you’re flying a UAV line of sight, you will have a Go-Around min altitude because by the time the signal goes to the CPU then to the FADEC you’re already on the ground. RQ-4s are notorious for those kinds of incidents mostly because ATC is rarely briefed on their min altitude for Go Arounds.
The day after I lock in pilot as my career this video comes out.... thanks Universe.
You can always fly FPV drones in the next world war..
Hahaha 😂.
That's messed up. I was in the same situation. At least I have flown FPV.
A.I can't get my ocado shopping right, let alone land a jet. we need 2 professionals in the cockpit
Get it, you can automate flying with just the captain. What if he gets food poisoning, or simply wants to take a dump and there’s a decompression in the cabin. Who’s gonna make the decision to land, will the captain be able to clean his mess fast and understand the situation in 5 seconds all while he’s in a decompressed washroom of 2x2ft size smelling like rotten bacon and eggs???
In the United States, most trains are still operated by at least two people, and they are locked onto a track and the route set by the control center.
Perfect example! If mankind needs 2 humans to control a vehicle in 1 dimension space, how will it control a vehicle in 3 dimension space, plus the limitation that the vehicles can not stop when airborne?
This gonna ruin a lot of people's dreams. Lemme tell you that right now.
Even without ruining people's dream, safety is going to be thrown out of the window. Wait, the front door actually.
I am a trained computer engineer with a masters degree in automation and control + I was trained as a commercial pilot. Recently while working with AI testing its code-generation ability, I provided the exact same request ( prompt ) and I got four different responses from the AI and the generated code was useful only in one of the cases! Furthermore if people >KNEW< exactly how the autopilots, various control systems and AI work on airplane ( specially the AI ) they would not want to fly in an aluminum tube at near the speed of sound and 11km altitude possibly over a large boy of water controlled only by some AI model. Invest the money and time to train intended to develop reliable AI ( that can match a good pilot's ability ) instead on select people with correct aptitude and attitude ( to fly airplanes ) and then train and support them well. Only non-technical people or those who haven't operated planes in serious weather would make such a suggestion. And YES the pilot's salaries are peanuts compared to the other airline operating costs. I am not claiming that pilots are flawless, there quite a few operators with questionable attitudes and abilities that cause problems ....agreed....BUT eliminating the human element is not the answer. Apart from the question of whether the flying public would accept this. Companies like Airbus would of course push for this...
1. Like all essential systems, two pilots are a necessary safety redundancy in the face of emergencies and failures. They're also uniquely organic (unaffected by software errors, not interfaced with computers). The stakes carrying hundreds of passengers are much higher than a single-seater fighter jet with a seat ejection system.
2. Multiple crew system reduces fatigue and loneliness (not a joke; working in a team tends to make a person not disregard proper procedures), and helps prevent pilot s**cide plane crashes.
3. A two-pilot system makes an excellent training environment for the junior pilot, as well as providing a good opportunity for the senior pilot to develop leadership skills.
Agree 💯 Joe. My gut said a big NO when this idea was first mooted, and you have just articulated the details of my gut feeling in this video. Having watched a huge amount of aviation accident/incident videos where the cockpit crew performed unbelievably under the most challenging of situations, it is incomprehensible that AI could even reach that level of finesse. Your statement about technological advances being an amazing tool are spot-on. That brief shot of a pilot alone in a two-seater airline cockpit made me feel a depressing sense of aloneness - and I'm glad that was one of your points raised. Will be a very sad, and retrogressive path aviation takes if this becomes a reality. Thanks for a great video Joe.
If or when the time comes that there are no human pilots at the controls of airplanes, I personally will never set my foot on board of an aircraft! People have gone nuts with their wet dreams of "artificial intelligence" which, in fact, is not an intelligence at all but rather sophisticated pre-programmed computer actions.
You are damn right! Safety and redundancy is the most important thing in Aviation and cannot be reduced by greed for profit.
Wow this infuriates me, future for our children looks dystopian
Excellent video Joe!
My career has been in the railway industry, where automation has made a driver obsolete, with appropriate safety levels, since the 1970s. Why? Because trains only have 2 degrees of freedom, and they are on the ground. When the automation detects a potential unsafe condition, it simply stops the train. Unfortunately, airline/aircraft corporate executives and accountants, not skilled in the technical aspects, believe that the same logic can be applied to aircraft, which have 3 degrees of freedom, and you can't just stop the plane when something goes wrong. Joe briefly mentioned public acceptance of OPO and NPO. That has been the biggest hurdle for trains. Many rail transit authorities around the world keep a person on board, not doing much other than opening and closing doors, just to please the public. The "driver" you see sitting in the cab is not driving the train; there only to make you, the riding public, feel better. We're just getting to the point where autonomous cars are starting to become accepted by some members of the public. It will be a long time before the general public accepts flying with one or no pilot.
Profit over safety. Sad world we live in
Back in my day…
When sh*t hits the fan, any plea by a distressed pilot to automation for assistance will be met with something along the lines of the famous quote by HAL 9000 in 2001 "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.". On a side note, these CEO's that are pushing the no-pilot-in-the-cockpit idea, would they want their private jets to fly as such with their a$$ in them?
Airbus is really pressing their luck with this, “Single Pilot Operation”. What if in the future there’s a single pilot (on a shorter flight), and that pilot becomes incapacitated (like suffering a heart attack), then that flight is SOL. There should always be an emergency pilot on board just in case.
Hopefully there is a pilot among the passengers.
@@deltaskyhawk does MSFS experience count? 😂
@@drwhitewashHey hopefully xplane does too! Or maybe if they want we have our vatsim hours 😂
IMHO one of the drivers for SPO is not as much cost reduction as it is about pilot shortage. The increasing need for pilots is obvious as many more are getting out of the profession than are entering while more and more planes are operating on more and more connections. SPO will not halve the need of pilots, but the mismatch between demand for pilots and available pilots is lessened.
But all of your arguments against SPO or No Pilot scenarios are in my mind absolutely right and SPO is also incredibly shortsighted as SPO is basically requiring an all Captain rank pilot staff - How are younger pilots going to be climbing up the ladder? SPO will may be in short term fix the shortage issue, but I fear will ultimately doom the industry
This subject crosses my mind as a student pilot with experience in A.I. @Captain Joe covers the core areas of concern really well here. I think single pilot ops is a scary prospect
How do you know if there is a pilot at the bar?
Wait a few minutes he will come and tell you
1979 - 1980 war ich vor meinem Studium Purser bei Lufthansa. Auf der 707 wurden die Navigatoren eingespart, die 747 wurde gerade eingeführt und auf meinen Mustern hatte die 727 noch den Flugingenieur, aber die kleine „Bobby Boeing“ flog mit zwei Piloten. Da kam dann beim fliegenden Personal der folgende Witz auf:
Lufthansa spart jetzt alle Piloten ein, ein Computer fliegt den Flieger alleine. Nach dem Start kommt die Ansage an die Passagiere:
„Guten Tag auf unserem modernen Flugzeug ohne Piloten, ich bin Ihr Bordcomputer und werde Sie schnell und sicher ans Ziel bringen. Sie brauchen sich keine Sorge zu machen, ich bin so programmiert worden, dass ich keine Fehler machen kann………..
Keine Fehler machen kann………
Keine Fehler machen kann…….“
einen kleinen
I was going to make a rather long winded comment here, but I think you hit most of the points I would make, so I will stick to the high points...Pilot incapacitation is a real thing, and perhaps more common than we'd like to believe. My recommended video list is currently showing several recorded ATC conversations involving an incapacitated pilot. Incapacitation doesn't always have to be severe. I case of the flu, or even food poisoning can render a pilot unfit, particularly if they have nobody to assist them or notice their mistakes.....nor can you fly a plane from the lavatory. Further, there have been several cases of pilot suicide. While having a second pilot hasn't prevented all of these tragic incidents, it has prevented some, and, in fact, we'll never know how many incidents were prevented by having another pilot handy. Finally, computers have always impressed me with their ability to take orders, I'm not as convinced with their ability to creatively give them. Most emergency situations are at least somewhat unique, and computers have never been particularly good at dealing with situations they weren't programmed for. Fortunately, major emergencies are rare, but when they occur, I doubt you'll find a pilot who isn't glad there are two sets of hands in the cockpit, and in certain cases, happy to have three or four. I'm sure the late Capt. Al Haynes would agree.
I vividly remember when I was in school for aircraft around 2000 era, all the talk was about how pilots in military and civil aircraft would become a thing of the past very soon. However, people feel alot more safe with an actual person flying and that's why it never happened from what I could always see.
I remember reading this saying as a child in the 80s, "To err is human. To really screw things up, you need a computer." Automated single/no pilot airplanes would be a hard pass for me. I'd need to have a lot more confidence in the programming.
Thanks. I like the ol’ pilot and dog joke.
Various pilots in the cockpit is safer, for sure 💖 Great video
I think that there is probably a generational difference in how this is viewed. As a boomer, I say, no way (I work in technology and with AI and know how problematic it can be, who wants the AI autopilot to hallucinate ). My youngest son however inherently trusts computers over humans. He says things like “they don’t get tired”, “they never miss a reading “… etc. even in the scenarios of handling the unexpected, computers are not subject to the startle factor and begin making corrections long before a human could. He and I often debate this (like I am certain many reading this will want to). My point isn’t who is right, but rather, different generations likely view this very differently (as a generalization).
Shows how young he is. Blindly trusting technology is wrong. Using technology as a tool is perfect exactly for the reasons you mentioned (no tiredness, precision, etc.).
When there are no pilots up front, I wont be flying anymore.
no plane should fly with 1 pilot, what if a pilot becomes ill or we get a repeat of Germanwings 9525
This is what they seem to forget
Not having any pilot would solve Germanwings 9525.
@paulroling1781 until someone will try to hack the airplane's system and crash it into the side of a mountain
They’ll never go to 0 pilot. The one thing my captain friend tells me that the job isn’t even flying the plane. It’s commanding and dealing with passengers and crew, planning, and problem solving before the plane even leads the ground. At least in passenger airlines
It's about when things go wrong, not when things go right. A well trained human brain is no match for a computer. It's also the reason pilots should be well paid - you're paying them for when things go wrong, not for all the 'easy/boring' bits. Managers have NFI in this regard.
Wouldn't it be better to figure out how to do away with stewardesses first? Robo servants of some sort? Maybe pneumatic tubes to deliver food and drink? I mean all the seats are lined up already. One tube in each side and a clever robot in back could send things forward to multiple people rows at once.
Flight attendants are safety officers on the aircraft, not there just to give you your drink, but there to make sure that in the event of an emergency, you prepare for the emergency and can evacuate the aircraft swiftly if needed.
@@five-toedslothbear4051yeah the pneumatic tubes will be used for emergency ejection
I am a retired airline pilot and have been flying since 1971. I doubt less than 2 pilots will happen in my lifetime. But when it can be shown that it is safer to fly without pilots, we will
have airlines flying with 1 or zero pilots. Today most accidents are caused by pilots and not airplanes. The biggest challenge will be public acceptance. People in the 1920s would think flying 400 people across the would be unthinkable. We cannot even imagine what we will be doing in 50 to 100 years. In 1970 we could not Imagine even smart phones. People might not even be able drive a car in 100 years. How many know how to drive a horse and buggy today? 16:24
I knew it would be Airbus to push this first. My reasoning is the use of Fly-by-Wire. You get so much automation data from thousands of daily usage of it that it's natural to try to automate it even more. IMO I think it's a fair test, on long haul flights, to try 3 pilots instead of 4
Of course the airplane can fly itself.... But it comes with a price and a high risk.
When we have plane incidents, it is because things are abnormal, the holes in the cheese match each other. I think both AI and a remote "pilot" on the ground will create more and bigger holes in the cheese and increase the risk of accidents.
Airplane incidents often have a prior history, which can be difficult to observe if "pilot" are not present personally in the cockpit and not have been involved in the entire flight envelop.
A cockpit work environment can be busy, even during a full normal flight. Sudden incidents require two pilots present to handle this. There must be two pilots in a cockpit to catch dangerous routines, stupid decisions and to make the right decisions.
If there are only a single pilot in the cockpit, then there is a high risk that the pilot will get tired and fall asleep, Pilots must have company / counterpart,
How will the pilots' skills be if automatics take more and more of the flight?. Remember outcome of many Flight incident has had a lucky outcome because the pilots have good flying skills,
it's that simple fly the plane with the remaning functioning systems availble, Do you think AI can figure this out?
SPO: just imagine a severe Birdstrike. Plane crashes, because the Pilot was not able to work on the Problem and had no time to call Mayday and ask the Dispatcher helping him with remote control to fly the plane, retract landing Gear, setting Flaps, shut down the Engine, extinguish the Fire, and set a safe Course all the same time in 800ft AGL.
Unlikely? well, it happend several times on SPO Aircrafts...
Im 14 years old, and im about to start flight school, and i hope to fly for United Airlines on the 787. I have had this question on my mind for a while. I really hope pilot less aircraft don't ever take off.
C'mon Joe! I was expecting a non-bias analysis! Good video anyway!
The day they eliminate pilots I'm not flying ever again. I work in medical devices (robotic surgery) and there's no freaking way I would EVER trust a system without redundancy.
While almost all of your rant's arguments may be perfectly on point, I miss your reflection on an even greater timescale.
Just about the same arguments were brought forward by yesterday's seasoned pilots when removing the *navigator* ; again decades later when removing the *flight* *engineer* .
Today, you are that seasoned pilot, and I admire your knowledge, your dedication and your top-notch level of professionalism. Yet I didn't hear a single word about you wanting the flight engineer back.
I'd be more than happy to learn about your thoughts on that.
I agree with your opinion Joe, but it seems they are specifically targeting the aviation industry to reduce the number of pilots. Why don’t they apply the same approach to the cruise industry? 🚢
The moment they introduce single-pilot operations or no pilots at all will be the moment I stop flying as a passenger!
ChatGPT will be flying soon …. You have reached your daily limit 😂😂😂
Replace the CEO with an AI, win-win :)
Just recently got my Commercial Multi-Engine rating, ready to gain my hours to get to the airlines! If we get to an era with no pilots, what am I, as well as other future pilots, going to do??
This will work great as long as there are no emergencies and as long as that single pilot doesn’t make any mistakes.
I predict that we will move to fully autonomous airliners within 20 years, probably with drone pilots on the ground as backups for a decade or so until full confidence is gained in the fully autonomous airliners.
Ecxelente video hermoso ❤
Please, let it always be 2 pilots in the cockpit! 🙏😬
I love seeing cockpit flying videos where both are working and interacting.
These simpletons think computers are incorruptible 😂....
This folks is the classic case of "fool me one, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on... shame on you". Of course we know none of these 'CEOs' will never fly on one of those "autonomous" equivalent of human carrying drones.
Agree with you. And i hope i never gonna see captain joe changing his name to a homeless joe.
It’s worth pointing out that even in Single Pilot Ops if a ground based dispatcher has the ability to remotely connect to an aircraft - so does a hacker.
As a proof of technological integrity the suits making these decisions should volunteer themselves to go for a test flight on the premise that legitimate terrorist hackers have been to offered eye watering rewards for cracking into the system and taking control.
No takers? Didn’t think so.
Wie lange arbeitet man jetzt schon am autonomen Fahren? Es klappt solange, bis irgendwo eine Baustelle auftaucht, ein blöde reflektirendes Schild steht, ein LKW über die querende Brücke fährt oder ein Karton auf der Fahrbahn liegt. Oder einfach nur etwas Nebel ist ("Frontkamera ausgefallen")
Wie will man einer KI >10.000h Flugerfahrung beibringen? Wie bringt man ihr bei richtig zu reagieren? Mal eben, sofern überhaupt noch vorhanden, FDR-Daten von Unfällen und glücklichen Ausgängen aufpielen wird da eher nicht funktionieren. Was ein Pilot in seinen Jahren im Kopf abgespeichert hat lässt sich nicht transferieren. Wie soll ein Remote-Pilot im Notfall eingreifen? Hat der dann Force-Feedback fürs das Popometer und kann er wirklich ALLES fernbedienen?
Und beim Thema KI besorgt mich vor allem: WER bringt ihr alles bei? Erfahrene Menschen oder Schreibtischtäter? Airbus und Boeing sind voll von Negativbeispielen. Und was mit derzeitigen KIs passiert, die von der aktuellen Gesellschaft mit "Daten" gefüttert werden, das möchte ich bitte nicht erleben...
Hebben je Kliegenschmorff?
Just when I’m about to start my PPL🥲. What the hell
I doubt that pilots are getting reduced in the cockpit. Considering how the same people advocating for single pilot operations are trying to implement ground dispatchers to assist the captain in their duties already sound like they still need a second pilot in the cockpit. And leaving one single person at the controls of a plane sounds like a very good idea, all I am going to say is German Wings Flight 9525
A single pilot does the papers work, brief crews. check the aircraft (tires, damaged, oil leak etc etc) goes up to cockpit and fill the routing data, greets passengers....... Oh man, there's a lot to mention here. SPO is a terrible idea.
I guess this kind of technology will become implemented one day in future, but not the next 15 years. the technology is simply not up to the task YET. So, keep flying Cpt Joe, and as always, great video as usual!
Greets from LSZG.
In my opinion flying cargo in remote areas is feasable.
Flying in dangerous areas would interesting.
If one pilot gets ill. You could share the workload with an operator at the ground or getting support from better computer assistents.
You don't have to solve the whole problem. Flying people around with an AI pilot, I don't think so.
So the only reason airbus wants to keep 1 pilot around is because if something goes wrong they have someone to blame. "PILOT ERROR"
It's a huge risk for aircraft manufacturers to develop and sell fully autonomous aircraft because if/when they go down(and they will) , the lawsuits alone will shut them down for good as they bleed money.
So grateful for this video, it really cleared my mind on that topic. Ive just turned 17 and I want to be a pilot so bad. And my only real concern is that, if im finished with my school and flight school, let's say that's in 6 years, and I start my job at an airline I don't want to be kciked out due to AI replacing me after just a couple of years in my dream job. It wouldnt be worth the struggle and financial risk I had put myself into to make my dream come true. I completely agree with you on those topics, but if we take in consideration of far AI has come in the last years, Im quite frankly worried what will be in the next decade. I mean what if AI is capable of problem solving? Is that really that far in the future? Havent we thought AI wouldnt be a thing till maybe 2040? Liebe Grüße aus München
Most pilots don't do much of anything once they press the autopilot button. The average salary of a commercial airline pilot is $250 to $500k a year. Why not eliminate that cost if automation is just as safe? I support having one pilot. There are many smaller GA passenger-rated planes that operate single pilot without any issues.
Just by reading that comment I know you are a complete moron
Thanks Joe very thought provoking video,i personally would not fly on a single or non pilot flight.As humans i believe we like to put our faith in the 2 humans at the flight deck who as humans arent going to do anything to risk getting home to their loved ones,plus theres a level of pride for a job well done,that i believe technology cant embrace,we humans are very special people,lets not forget that
Kym
Adelaide
The EASA will approve this. But I see this not being approved in the USA….FAA takes on average 30 months to fix things, I bet it will take years. And I hope that’s the case bc I do not want to be the only pilot of an airliner. I know many other professionals in the industry that are strongly against single pilot operations
Then wait till FAA is dismantled by Elmo. The best he will change it from "FAA gives permission to do this or that" to "FAA may object this or that".
Not related to the video but where can you get those prints like the 747 one behind you!
A single pilot is a horrifying thought! No pilot, forget about me ever flying again!
It's all for profit. There's no reason to spend more time diving deeper because that's all it is: money. If airlines didn't lose so much money in payouts, PR, lost of hardware, etc in every crash, they would have been down to 1 pilot years ago
Ia can see 1 pilot operations in ferry flights. In the near future
Anecdotally, it is argued that businesses do NOT invest in IT Security; representing that paying the damages is LESS THAN the cost of the IT Security software and processes....... Just 'food for thought' (...and a truly frightening premise ... ONE pilot!?!?!? smh)
I believe that one important aspect of single piloting future has been miss diagnosis in this video. An airplane and its system wont be same as it is now. huge design and technology improvements will be implemented on new generation airplanes. We cannot explain the issues by looking at today’s airplanes….
I’m all for technology but my brain cannot phantom a commercial flight having only one pilot, even more no pilots at all. I leave that dilemma to my kids and grandkids generations! 😂
SPO will not work because if the computer can replace redundancy, why should it not be able to fly all by itself at that point? Especially if it needs to recognise mistakes, would probably be easier to let it just do its thing at that point.
No pilot means no responsibilities.
Wow what a nice trick
My apologies Joe. I am a colleague. I very respectfully disagree with you. All the best, keep up the excellent work.
A plane that flies itself fully on it's own from gate to gate? Yeah thats coming. But not even a pilot sitting there overseeing it and ready to take over in the event of a failure? yeah thats not happening. They wouldn't sell a single ticket. I'm just starting my training and a fully automated aircraft could definirtely happen within my career. It's a sad time man. I often find myself wishing I was born a lot earlier so i could've been a pilot in the "golden age"
The day general aviations falls to one pilot is the day I stop using airplane as a transportation mode !
Tbh we all know with how advanced aircrafts have become where they could do a journey entirely on autopilot.
But as a passenger would you board a flight with no captain or first officer and have trust in a computer?? I bet a large percentage would say no
-1 pilot and you will get way more accidents like German wings in France. -2. Just check how American self-driving cars experiment is going. I will never buy a ticket on a plane with no pilots. I could write a lot of things about AI, but I won't do it, because it's a different topic. It's not as good as tech companies are trying to show you
Nice rant, but regarding safety I rather prefer machines over human beings. And besides that, I am old enough to remember the exact same arguments when the flight engineers were replaced by better planes... 😉
We are not going to be able to prevent this reality. It will happen, passengers will come to trust autonomous airplanes just as they have come to trust multitude of other autonomous technologies.
We are only angry about this because it is finally happening to us pilots. We hardly put up a flight when all those other positions were lost, who are we to think others will come to our aide now that it’s our turn to become obsolete?
Until the machine can do it all better than human, and handle any situation, even those reacquiring creativity and "inventing" a solution on the go - and have full redundancy at the same time this is nuts. If you *need* ONE human, you need TWO, simply because we can get get very ill or die without warning, regardless of the medical class and we got, and how long since last medical. ONE may be enough for cargo flights over unpopulated areas, where you assume that ground risk is small. We can fly single-pilot operations is small planes, not huge planes and/or hundreds of passengers.
Ha, who's going to push the takeoff, fly and land buttons in the right order? A flight attendant? Fat chance.
Agree entirely, use AI to make more safe for 2 pilot operation, not 1 or 0 pilot operation. Very well presented. Cheers.
This will absolutely happen and will happen sooner than we think. There is no doubt that fully automated airliners will increase air safety. Look at how reliable and capable rockets have become and they are fully automated. They aren’t yet fully autonomous, but that will come.
Currently, when an airliner lands itself, every plane at the airport has to stay far away from the runway to make sure they don’t interfere with the ILS signal, and then the plane slams itself down somewhere on the runway and then the pilots still have to use the reverse thrust manually and steer the plane. So yeah I don’t know about them being fully automated soon.
@ ILS is antiquated. Autonomous landings will likely use GPS in the future or a more modern guidance system. Then critical area protection will not be an issue.
@@LTVoyager True, GPS approaches already work quite well now, so they should definitely be able to used for auto landings soon.
I just got my commercial pilots license last month and finishing multi engine training and I’m not worried at all lol give it 6 - 12 months of single or no pilot flights there will be a higher rate of accidents and paying customers will wise up pretty quickly and avoid it like the plague and it will be a financial disaster for investors of this system and airlines alike … not to mention a loss of life……….. don’t get me wrong one day in the future I don’t doubt planes will fly themselves but I don’t believe any time soon
Either there are two pilots in the cockpit, or there is no flying at all (in an airliner ;))
2 Pilots Is a must when it comes to Commercial Travel hauling more than 50 Poeple.
I was told in the cockpit there will be a man a dog the man is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to stop the man touching anything.
Imo you will always need a pilot when you need a pilot miracle on the Hudson proves that.
Also a single pilot is a bad idea.
I mean, this happens all the time as humanity progresses. Certain jobs become obsolete...new types of jobs are created. It is what it is. That said, as of right now in 2024, I would still prefer to have at least one actual human up in the cockpit. But, as technology advances over the coming years, I may very well feel differently at some point and be totally OK with no humans up there at all.
But hey, at least the airlines will pass on their 4% savings onto the passengers, right? Right?
Don't let software developers grind you down! Don't let them bully you with accusations that you're holding back progress by not letting them run your life. Of course they have absolute faith in their work - so did Dr Frankenstein - but that's no reason to think that anyone else should.
So let them mock us as stick-in-the-mud Luddites, as dinosaurs; we shouldn't be afraid to ignore their taunts. They understand their subject but not the realities of its application.
Whether it's cars on the road or planes in the air, passengers need to know that they've not been reduced to the level of cargo.
Incredibly, people in the United States have already been reduced to the status of guinea pigs. Someone with a lot of money allegedly made some phone calls and allegedly pulled some strings (and allegedly made some threats?) and suddenly authorities allowed semi-autonomous cars free access to public roads. That is an OUTRAGE! A scandal! Think about it! Beta-testing flawed software on real people is a disgrace!
So let's not have it happen in international airspace, too.
Cars and planes should be operated by 'systems' with an equal amount to lose as the passengers they're carrying when things go wrong. Our primate-derived survival instincts and self-preservation reflexes have had millions of years of real-world R&D to get to where they are now.
Machines don't care. They can be programmed to appear to care, but they won't care about life until they themselves are living. No, not appearing to be living - LIVING. Big difference. Huge.
Until we can create living machines, we should continue to rely on a system involving multiple levels of human redundancy for our safety. We matter because we care. We don't appear to care; we actually do care.
Software developers seem to think that they can bypass all the tedious 'life' business and cut straight to their shiny Star Trek Futurama visions of tomorrow. Well, they can, it's a free world - but only if that tomorrow remains a personal, private thing and doesn't involve you, me, or anybody else.
I think only a deluded minority would be willing to trust their lives to some maniac's Full Self-Crashing algorithms. Cough, cough, Muskrat, ahem, Tesla, harrumph...
Whatever happened to the idea of multiple redundancy for safety-critical systems on commercial aircraft? If it applies to electrics and hydraulics, it should apply to the primary guidance system, too. So... two pilots, minimum, please. Two pilots under all circumstances. No exceptions.
If your plane is carrying real people, those people need to know that there are at least two other people on board with as much invested in the flight as they have. Family, friends, life commitments - all the boring, messy stuff that software developers spend so much time bypassing in their search for stability.
No machine, however 'artificially intelligent' will ever care as much as a human about tomorrow. If it did, it'd be human, so why try to replace us with something demonstrably inferior?
I suspect that any airline which manages to squeeze solo-pilot or remote-pilot operations past the regulators will find itself short of paying passengers. Carrying inert cargo doesn't make reduced pilot involvement any more attractive. True, there are fewer lives on board at risk, but who wants 200 tons of out-of-control cargo plane falling onto their town?
I can see no way to justify this possible 'advance' in operational efficiency. Just because something can be done is not a good enough justification for doing it. The system is not broken. It doesn't need fixing.
I wonder how many billiionaires would trust their lives to such 'reduced pilot' technology. Would Ego Muskrat REALLY convert his business jet to semi-automatic or fully autonomous operation, with all the risk of a software glitch spoiling his day, or would he expect there to be two or more real pilots in the cockpit at all times?
Have you noticed that the US President's plane - Air Force One, a Boeing 747 - has FOUR engines? Not two, four. The military likes quads, too. Four props, four jets. Mmmm, sweet, sweet redundancy.
All commercial airliners equipped with just two engines are capable of flying on one should the other fail, but... Why would a mere (easily replaced) Head of State require more redundancy than Bob, Sue and the kids jetting off to Spain for a week? Don't their lives matter as much? No? Says who? Aren't 2 engines good enough for a VIP flight?
Who decided that?
How many pilots are there on Air Force One? Two? Three? Five? Why's that? Would a US president trust his life and position to an aircraft with no redundancy of its key systems? To a plane flown remotely like a combat drone or by a single pilot who might or might not have a bad enough day to decide to end it all?
If not, nobody should expect any of the rest of us to do so, either.
That goes for autonomous cars on the road, too.
Single-pilot commercial airliners and remote-controlled 'drone' flights will certainly change the face of aviation. They'll destroy it, because no sane person would willingly get on board a jet without a full complement of sober, skilled pilots and crew.
Every aviation accident provides vital data and improves the overall safety of future operations. Progress via tragedy. Currently, things are pretty good, safety-per-million-miles-flown-wise. It'd be ridiculous to throw away all that painstakingly gathered information to start from scratch when there's no sensible reason for making drastic changes anyway.
If software developers, airline accountants and daydreaming billionaires think that reducing pilot numbers and introducing autonomy is the answer, they haven't understood the question.
Robot tax is needed where worker's and crew are replaced
What passenger is gonna get on a plane with zero pilots especially after what happened with the 737 max and it’s Mcas system.
I can tell you that , I've often promised my laptop , that I will give it flying lesson's. Now say hello to Ur new pilot 😂😂 it's my laptop , 😂😂 it's annoyed me enough that the flying lessons have paid off. Positive AI CAN be used to do the captain voice over . 😂😂😂
Even if they made the airplanes automated, I don't believe the airlines would pass on the 'cost savings' to the consumer anyway. So I don't see any benefit in removing the pilots purely on an economic point.
Well, i for one dot think this is gonna be viable, safety is of paramount importance in our field and certainly cannot be compromised for any reason whatsoever. Profit margins will always change, but safety margins are the primary! Sadly, nobody takes a Pilot's opinion seriously on this topic coz they falsely assume that all we're trying to do is prove a point to save our jobs🤷🤷🤷
Sorry for my thousands dollar ticket, i find safety to the fact that a pilot is doing their best to fly as they will go down with me if something goes wrong
As a maintenance engineer, I can't wait for the "prima donnas" A.K.A. pilots, to become a thing of the past.
Germanwings flight whatever the fuck. Suicidal pilots? Passenger fear? Absolutely not. It’s up to us to fight company greed so that our sons will be able to be pilots without worrying about job security (at least not at a level 2x as bad as we have it on our worse years)