Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Has the pilot shortage arrived?

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 703 ✭✭✭Cessna_Pilot


    These articles about pilot shortages crops up every so often.
    A lot of young lads hear this and jump into pilot training, however although yes there is a shortage, it's not of new pilots but of experienced ones.

    For the record, a lot of pilots who went to the desert where the sand looked greener are returning to Europe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 581 ✭✭✭pepe the prawn


    These articles about pilot shortages crops up every so often.
    A lot of young lads hear this and jump into pilot training, however although yes there is a shortage, it's not of new pilots but of experienced ones.

    For the record, a lot of pilots who went to the desert where the sand looked greener are returning to Europe.

    Yeah I should have stated that, it's experienced pilots who are in short supply.. Still, creates space further down the ladder too I suppose.

    And yes probably a good few pilots regretted their move to the sandpit, but lots of them happy over there too and earning some serious money. It all depends on the individual and their mindset going over, same as relocating for any job. Either suck it up and prepare to have the arse worked off you and be nicely paid for it and enjoy a different lifestyle, or else grumble that you're not home every night and you miss your old life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9 edgy987


    Theirs no shortage.

    And the young bunch studying to become pilots now will be on the dole half way through their careers when they will be replaced by a Bot.

    Pilots are gonna be one of the easiest to replace.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 581 ✭✭✭pepe the prawn


    edgy987 wrote: »

    And the young bunch studying to become pilots now will be on the dole half way through their careers when they will be replaced by a Bot.

    Pilots are gonna be one of the easiest to replace.



    Hmmm, maybe you're right, but I hope you're wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭martinsvi


    edgy987 wrote: »
    Theirs no shortage.

    And the young bunch studying to become pilots now will be on the dole half way through their careers when they will be replaced by a Bot.

    Pilots are gonna be one of the easiest to replace.

    you obviously have no idea how difficult it is to get any sort of initiative through authorities such as EASA or FAA to be even suggesting that pilots can be replaced by bots..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9 edgy987


    martinsvi wrote: »
    you obviously have no idea how difficult it is to get any sort of initiative through authorities such as EASA or FAA to be even suggesting that pilots can be replaced by bots..



    It's coming. Them Agencys can only delay it abit before they tick that box. Less than 20 years. It can't come quick enough!!

    The tech is easier than self driving cars, the airlines will push to get rid of pilots.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭Bsal


    Current generation aircraft being produced require human input and these aircraft have a lifespan of atleast 30 years so nothing is changing anytime soon, plus changes in the aviation industry happen at a snails pace. I think real pilots are safe for the next 100 years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    The first problem to be addressed is redundant GPS systems. Ideally there would be 3 GPS systems with world wide coverage, each having five digit up time .99999. Presently there are 1 1/2 systems namely US, EU and Russia with many used for military purposes and not available to International Civil Aviation. Riding on the GPS systems would be remote communications and control capability for use by the owner/operators of the aircraft. Each aircraft would send a stream of location, altitude, heading, speed data to the central controller (the equivalent of a mainframe computer) which would actually control the aircraft by streaming data back to the airplane . In addition there would be proximity (other aircraft) sensors, ground sensors on each aircraft. At major airports there would be a "controller complex" (MF Computer) to control aircraft within a 100Km radius and from ground up to 3000 metres.

    The complexity for a single operator would be enormous and would require a lead time of at least 10 years. Add in squabbling world powers each protecting its own turf and its becomes an impossible project.

    This does not mean that regional arrangements cannot be successful but they would be stand alone systems. The first would likely be NAFTA (US, CDA, Mex) with the EU far behind as they sort out their multiple languages and jockey for where the jobs and equipment would be located. China is likely to jump to the front as they did with high speed rail by building aircraft that would be pilotless.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    edgy987 wrote: »
    It's coming. Them Agencys can only delay it abit before they tick that box. Less than 20 years. It can't come quick enough!!

    The tech is easier than self driving cars, the airlines will push to get rid of pilots.

    In some abnormal cases having no human present in the cockpit may in fact be safer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭martinsvi


    edgy987 wrote: »
    It's coming. Them Agencys can only delay it abit before they tick that box. Less than 20 years. It can't come quick enough!!

    The tech is easier than self driving cars, the airlines will push to get rid of pilots.

    there are number of showstoppers thou.. if the plane is remotely controllable, how do you secure it against hackers? What happens if someone decides to block the signal, like for example North Korea just jammed GPS which caused South Koreans some problems? Sure you can hardcode some procedures that mandate the plane to land at the first suitable airport, but when you imagine how busy the airspace is, if all planes suddenly decide to do the same thing at the same time you literally can run into infinite number of crash scenarios that are too difficult to either predict or avoid. TCAS has it's limitations too

    If the plane is not remotely controllable, what do you do if an unexpected event develops that the computer hasn't been programmed to deal with? Conflicting sensor readings for example?

    The next big issue is us - the paying pax. Would you trust an aircraft that has no one intelligent in front of it? I wouldn't. There has to be a change of culture and mindset. We have to get used to robots, self driving cars, food preparing androids before we can trust our bottoms with self flying machines. It's not going to happen in 20 years and airlines simply will not invest into expensive technology if it's going to make their customers go elsewhere


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,379 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Hasschu wrote: »
    The first problem to be addressed is redundant GPS systems. Ideally there would be 3 GPS systems with world wide coverage, each having five digit up time .99999. Presently there are 1 1/2 systems namely US, EU and Russia with many used for military purposes and not available to International Civil Aviation. Riding on the GPS systems would be remote communications and control capability for use by the owner/operators of the aircraft. Each aircraft would send a stream of location, altitude, heading, speed data to the central controller (the equivalent of a mainframe computer) which would actually control the aircraft by streaming data back to the airplane . In addition there would be proximity (other aircraft) sensors, ground sensors on each aircraft. At major airports there would be a "controller complex" (MF Computer) to control aircraft within a 100Km radius and from ground up to 3000 metres.

    The complexity for a single operator would be enormous and would require a lead time of at least 10 years. Add in squabbling world powers each protecting its own turf and its becomes an impossible project.
    You'd only need one system with .99999 because five nines translates to 5 minutes outage a year. Most inertial systems could cope with that.

    Not sure where the 1 1/2 comes from.

    Your phone probably has GLONASS

    Galileo should start some Early Operational Capacity later this year. Another pair of Galileo navigation satellites is scheduled for launch by Soyuz rocket in May, ahead of a quartet on an Ariane 5 in the autumn, bringing the Galileo system a step closer to operational use.

    China has a regional system based on geosynchronous satellites and is rolling out a global one. India has a regional system and are working on the last satellite for it.

    And of course there are the Iridium satellites , the ones that do phones, for rough positioning. Not to mention all the land based stuff, like the ones that both sides were using for bomber navigation back in WWII to get an aircraft on target hundreds of miles away. Even back then they had the beginnings of instrument landing systems.


    Note:
    On land aircraft can use beacons. While at sea they can use radar altimeters to get an accurate altitude. This then means they need one less GPS satellite to fix position because one variable is known.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    @Capt'n Midnight
    In heavy traffic zones 5 minutes is an eternity and loss of remote monitoring and control of that duration could not be accepted. There are many factors that have to be taken into account when analysing satellites. A major one is hostile acts by countries or organisations against satellites which are vulnerable to disruption aimed directly at the satellite such as laser or explosives or indirectly by jamming the signals over a wide area (hundreds of kilometres). In complex systems where a high degree of accuracy is essential it is necessary to have 3 systems running simultaneously. When one result differs from the other two then the two matching results are used.
    The systems on the ground in the air and on the aircraft would be complex and expensive with redundancy built in at all levels. The development costs would also be such that a single country could not afford to develop it. A joint US-EU-Japan initiative might be affordable if political obstacles could be overcome.
    I have worked in Air Traffic Control and presently I am familiar with system integration issues on driverless train operations. The latest issue was to automate the recovery of disabled trains, you can imagine what that entails, a broken wheel, malfunctioning brakes, broken track, door open, fire. It would be impossible to envisage and plan for all scenarios without having somebody eyeball and assess whether it was safe to move the train. This would be very simple to plan for compared to running pilotless aircraft. Similarly with driverless cars, fine under controlled conditions but not capable of handling all conditions. Galileo if you remember lost trucks that entered areas with high rise buildings or tunnels and could not recover them (software) when they exited. We are at the baby steps stage of large scale, wide area, moving object automation.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,379 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Hasschu wrote: »
    @Capt'n Midnight
    In heavy traffic zones 5 minutes is an eternity and loss of remote monitoring and control of that duration could not be accepted
    In heavy traffic zones you are in radar range, outside that normal separations would apply.

    . There are many factors that have to be taken into account when analysing satellites. A major one is hostile acts by countries or organisations against satellites which are vulnerable to disruption aimed directly at the satellite such as laser or explosives or indirectly by jamming the signals over a wide area (hundreds of kilometres).
    Even if there was a war they'd most likely fallback to the old GPS system where accuracy dropped down to 100's of meters. Enough to get you within ground control range.

    Over the Indian Ocean there will soon be US, EU, Russian, Indian and two Chinese systems. If a war took out all of them you still have inertial.

    Really it's down to cost, Iridium has been up there for ages and any airline could have used it for comms, except it ain't cheap.

    In complex systems where a high degree of accuracy is essential it is necessary to have 3 systems running simultaneously. When one result differs from the other two then the two matching results are used.
    That's why they have redundant satellites. You only need 4 for a fix. (Three if you know your altitude, possibly even two if you already had a precise fix , have accurate timing and know your vectors since that precise fix because you know roughly where you are and what the satellite should tell you)

    Yes aircraft use three computers for fly by wire. But that's because failure of them is could lead to bad things very soon. In the case of the X29A the ejector seat was wired into the computers, it was so unstable that it was reckoned that if the computers failed it wasn't worth giving the pilot a chance to control it manually.

    The systems on the ground in the air and on the aircraft would be complex and expensive with redundancy built in at all levels. The development costs would also be such that a single country could not afford to develop it. A joint US-EU-Japan initiative might be affordable if political obstacles could be overcome.
    Actually more of a global standards thing.
    I have worked in Air Traffic Control and presently I am familiar with system integration issues on driverless train operations. The latest issue was to automate the recovery of disabled trains, you can imagine what that entails, a broken wheel, malfunctioning brakes, broken track, door open, fire. It would be impossible to envisage and plan for all scenarios without having somebody eyeball and assess whether it was safe to move the train. This would be very simple to plan for compared to running pilotless aircraft. Similarly with driverless cars, fine under controlled conditions but not capable of handling all conditions. Galileo if you remember lost trucks that entered areas with high rise buildings or tunnels and could not recover them (software) when they exited. We are at the baby steps stage of large scale, wide area, moving object automation.
    How old is this one :)

    In the future all aircraft will be flown by a man and a dog. The man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to keep the man away from the controls.

    It's back to the old having a human on standby, like the airline stewards who are there for safety reasons. All the other stuff is to justify the overhead.

    There is a totally separate issue regarding security and that scares me.
    Because the targets are so high value and the industry doesn't have a robust history of responding to threats. How many airliners have had power problems/fires because of lithium batteries or in-flight entertainment systems. Cars and nuclear powerplants have been taken over.

    I'd trust the auto-pilot way more than I'd trust the firewall.



    A reminder that the USAF uses pilots to land it's UAV's , the Army doesn't. Guess who has the most prangs on landings ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭cuterob


    The general public are not going to get on an airplane which has no one in the cockpit, end of.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    Transoceanic, transcontinental air traffic control and piloting is relatively cheap the choke points are at major hubs where radar both primary and secondary is proving to be inadequate to handle dual runway operation with 3 minute separation (effectively a movement every 1.5 minutes) for both landing and departing aircraft. You have high definition on airport radar (3 mi radius) that can pick up a dog on the runway to be integrated with terminal control radar (25 mi radius) and enroute radars some operated remotely (600 mile radius). Integrating 3 radar systems with a satellite based system to enable pilotless operation of aircraft would not be cost effective by any stretch of the imagination.

    The military expects and plans for catastrophic "accidents". Losing a military pilot or two pilots is a small PR problem. Losing 500 passengers or double that in a midair collision is a completely different kettle of fish. Not just in PR terms but in litigation and settlement terms. The latter is what Gov'ts and Regulatory Authorities look at very carefully. I have been involved in commissions of inquiry into aircraft accidents that lasted months with hundreds of hours of cross examination under oath. Most people who are familiar with the process post accident tend to be a very cautious bunch.

    I agree with you on need for aircraft cabin attendants, that is a hotly debated issue wrt driverless trains.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭notharrypotter


    You have high definition on airport radar (3 mi radius) that can pick up a dog on the runway

    Dog?
    where radar both primary and secondary is proving to be inadequate to handle dual runway operation with 3 minute separation

    Interesting, care to name airports where the radars are not adequate?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭_Tombstone_


    Tech advancements will wipe out all this won't work stuff^^^. Every day I'm shocked at some new stuff I read thats coming.

    Hell, their probably won't be planes in....100 years (for arguments sake) their's no need for them now, we could be zipping along on 4000mph trains on floating tunnels 150ft below the Atlantic right now. Their's nothing fancy needed, we could do it now. Estimated costs at $25-$50million a MILE back in 2004 is the only problem - http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic-maglev...it's not even really that expensive.

    Hyperloops are gonna start popping up all over the place in the near future - poorer maybe not as corrupt countries first - Slovakia looks like it'll be first with a route from Bratislava to Vienna (Austria) to Budapest (Hungary) - http://theweek.com/articles/612814/how-elon-musks-hyperloop-dream-moving-from-scifi-fantasy-reality

    From 2030 onwards Huuuuuuuuge unemployemnt, Virtual Reality, spiralling fuel costs and environmental concerns (it's gonna get so bad:eek:) will really start to hurt the dirty polluting airlines - http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2359541/report-air-passenger-growth-to-leave-emissions-cuts-grounded

    They'll have new planes - http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100036222.pdf - but when trains are better it's just backward.

    If you're 20-30 years old now, planes will be the least of your worries, advances in health care keeping you ticking + climate change = you're fuked basically, it's already so bad that even if we had Zero Emissions by 2030 and started removing CO2 from the atmosphere/ocean system and removing methane from the atmosphere, neither of which is ever gonna happen then every projection for the vast majority of the 9 Billion projected people in every model I've wasted time looking at is fairly sh1tty.

    Technological singularity


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    @notharrypotter
    Actually dogs, rabbits, wolves, bears, deer, moose, people, cars trucks, snow ploughs, sweepers. Remember the aircraft that ran into a snow plough on a Russian runway about a year ago, no high definition radar in the Control Tower.
    One of the things that people who get on a runway notice and comment on is that it looks vacuum cleaned. Accelerating large aircraft create suction that can suck up objects off the runway and into the fan blades usually resulting in severely damaging or even totalling that engine. I have had contracts that entailed heavy earth moving equipment crossing runways, we always had to call out the Airport Fire Department to vacuum up the earth sand and gravel dropping from the heavy machinery.
    As to the specific airport I was employed at. It is Government owned and I had a security clearance that was quite high which included a clause wrt to divulging information that was considered to be proprietary. Plus I am from Kerry where we keep our cards close to our chests. You know that joke where the Kerry people ask you twenty questions and you finish up knowing little about them.
    Traffic at airports is usually kept to controllable limits by imposing high landing fees and making prefiled flight plans and landing slot permission mandatory prior to take off.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,655 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    edgy987 wrote: »
    The tech is easier than self driving cars, the airlines will push to get rid of pilots.
    Passengers will push back.

    It's a little bit like the railways int eh 19th century. they didn't really care about employee safety (16,000 deaths and maimings per year in the UK), but really cared about passenger safety, as passenger safety (or the perception thereof) affected income.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭notharrypotter


    Actually dogs, rabbits, wolves, bears, deer, moose, people,
    Carbon based lifeforms will not give a radar return.
    cars trucks, snow ploughs, sweepers
    Metal objects will give a return when primary radar is used.

    Both will give a return when equipped with a suitable ADS-B transponder.
    no high definition radar in the Control Tower
    ?

    Surface movements RADAR and A-SMGCS.

    Methinks you may be mixing up a camera based surveillance setup or a surveillance set up with integrated cameras and radar with a RADAR based system.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭martinsvi


    although radar wont pick up live stock, it will cause radar RF to clutter. I remember reading about a technology that allows echoes from multiple radars to be analyzed to detect birds, people and other live stuff around airport. I'm not sure how they do it in Dublin, but they definitely can detect people near 10/28 - they have this video of radar return they play on their open days where a lad cutting grass is caught off guard while a plane is taking off


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭The King of Dalriada


    Y
    Note:
    On land aircraft can use beacons. While at sea they can use radar altimeters to get an accurate altitude. This then means they need one less GPS satellite to fix position because one variable is known.

    Radar Altimeters only function below 2500 feet AGL.
    Unless of course you're at cruise altitude and slowly overtaking another aircraft below you. Then the rad alt can come alive and show 1000 or 2000.

    Radar Altimeters are not used for any kind of lateral navigation. Neither is GPS altitude.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭KwackerJack


    I'm starting Pilot Training this summer so I hope there's going to be a shortage.

    As for self flying planes it's ok having the tech but tech will and has gone wrong and only for the human input the plane would be screwed.

    I remember a story of a crew landing a plane using only the engines as the training flight surfaces were beyond use.......Let's see a computer do that!!!

    Also would the passengers fly in an aircraft with no pilots?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭_Tombstone_



    Also would the passengers fly in an aircraft with no pilots?

    Ah yea, people just have to get use to the thought.

    Survey numbers over the years asking people would they get in a driver less car have improved, its still very small at 25% but when you add in that they won't have to pay insurance it shoots up to near 70% I think it was.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭bkehoe


    martinsvi wrote: »
    although radar wont pick up live stock, it will cause radar RF to clutter. I remember reading about a technology that allows echoes from multiple radars to be analyzed to detect birds, people and other live stuff around airport. I'm not sure how they do it in Dublin, but they definitely can detect people near 10/28 - they have this video of radar return they play on their open days where a lad cutting grass is caught off guard while a plane is taking off

    Frankfurt airport uses radar to detect flocks of birds; they talked about this on the recent multi part documentary about the airport on TV.

    Heres one such product on the market; http://www.robinradar.com/3d-fixed/


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,379 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I remember a story of a crew landing a plane using only the engines as the training flight surfaces were beyond use.......Let's see a computer do that!!!
    An earlier one was the Sioux City crash
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
    They almost made it to the runway.

    As a result NASA researched into getting flight systems to handle this sort of stuff.
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/PCA/index_prt.htm

    I don't know if Airbus were using it for the DHL incident.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭KwackerJack


    An earlier one was the Sioux City crash
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
    They almost made it to the runway.

    As a result NASA researched into getting flight systems to handle this sort of stuff.
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/PCA/index_prt.htm

    I don't know if Airbus were using it for the DHL incident.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident

    All looks really good but can a computer really have the 'Intelligence' and the simple experience, quick thinking and general knowledge of a pilot??


    In a situation the computer can only do what its designed to do! Pilots are trained in a certain way but a lot of pilots have landed crippled planes using methods they were never shown in training, this only come with experience and that human touch


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    If the main control systems are not operating, then the computer can't control them, and it's down to whatever the crew can come up with.

    A long time ago now, as part of some complex research into handling and flight envelope excursions, I did a lot of research testing in a number of Level D simulators, and the issues around control failure was one scenario that we explored in a lot of detail, in a sim, it's relatively easy to freeze the controls by pulling a number of circuit breakers, the challenge then is to work out how to keep the thing flying with what's left. We did a number of sessions in MD80, 737, 747(classic and 400), 757 and Airbus, and with varying degrees of difficulty it was possible to get them back on to the ground in a survivable manner. The MD was challenging, because the engines being close to the centre line and at the tail meant that getting it to turn was not easy, and the Airbus FBW in manual reversion was a pig, simply because the pitch trim took for ever to get to where it was needed if the power setting was significantly changed, so much so that one operator that we were working with stated that a manual reversion go around wasn't possible, because of the problems of keeping the pitch under control during the early stages of the climb out.

    The computers in that situation are just weight, they can do nothing to help at all, and even if everything is working, in a lot of cases, the age of the computers is such that they can't have the size and complexity of software that is needed to fully analyse the issue and provide meaningful guidance, which is why some of the emergency check lists and the like are so long and complex.

    It's scary how many systems are still using 386 processors, because the later ones were not certified for aviation use, there was a problem a long time ago with a floating point math calculation issue on 486 processors that stopped them from being used in critical aviation applications, and I'm not sure if it was resolved with the later 5 series processors, so much so that a few years ago, Intel had to do a special run to make 386 chips for Boeing, as they'd run out of the stock they had, and couldn't upgrade to a later device without a nightmare with certification, it was cheaper to pay for a special run to produce more 386 chips.

    The other problem is that it used to be relatively easy for a flight crew member to spend some time in a sim to "experiment" with the extremes of the aircraft handling envelope, but "standard operating procedures", paranoia among the training community and bean counter restrictions on the use of simulator time now means that it's no longer possible for people to explore the handling of the aircraft that they fly every day, so when something extreme happens, there is a very good chance that none of the flight crew have ever had any chance to explore what the limits are, so that they know how to use them.

    A classic example of this was a thing we used to do on the 747-4, you could use any runway, the scenario was from a "clear take off" position, start the stop watch, take off, climb to 10,000 Ft, and put it back on the runway again, shortest time wins. No other rules, other than don't break the sim! CAVOK, zero wind, any runway for the landing, so relatively easy in some respects. We tried it on a number of people, and the shortest time was about 6 mins 25 seconds, which needed some non standard handling to achieve it, but it was safe.

    A few months later, one of my colleagues, who was a full time ground instructor on the aircraft, gave the same scenario to 3 type rated First Officers. 2 of the 3 broke the aircraft in the air, as they were lost without the magenta line to guide them, and didn't know the extremes of the envelope, so they over stressed the airframe. Scary stuff, and we've seen other examples with Air France and the like, the formalisation of training and procedures has had the very negative effect of making it very hard for people to know exactly where the limits are, and how to use the airframe up to those limits without danger. So many of the modern crew are put in the position where they handle the aircraft for maybe 10 minutes, and the automation then takes over, so their experience of some aspects of the handling is close to zero, and if the automation fails in a phase of flight that's unexpected, the crew are presented with a pig to fly in a situation that they've no experience or training for. (AF447 being the classic most recent example), and the result may be very much less than optimal!

    I accept that the number of occasions where the requirement to use the extremes is very limited, but how are we to put a value on the difference between a bad outcome and a good outcome when something dramatic goes wrong in the air? Where commercial flights are concerned, while money is a factor, there is so much more that has to be factored in to that equation.

    Then of course, there's the very real issue of the transition between a small single engine "spam can", and a modern full EFIS FBW commercial airliner that's landing at twice the speed that the spam can cruises at, it can be a very hard transition to make, if you've spent a couple of hundred hours flying analog instruments, and now have to adapt to the modern EFIS presentation, with all the extra bells and whistles that come with it, and are doing it at 4 or 5 times the speed that you're used to, that can be very challenging to adapt to, some of the airlines are not using small piston singles for training any more, as they don't see it as appropriate, the one down side of that being that if you don't fly a small single, your "solo" time may be very limited indeed, and it's only when there's no one else there to make a "committee decision" that you learn how to make critical decisions that are possibly life significant. It's been recognised by the regulators, some commercial licenses now are only valid for flight in multi crew environments, the holder can't hire and fly a small light aircraft, even though they may have flown a 777 or 380 into the exact same airport a few hours earlier.

    A box the size of a large matchbox has the ability to navigate an aircraft with an accuracy of 20 metres to any point on the globe, but the technical challenges of making that fail safe, or even better fail soft, so that it can recover in the event of any form of failure is still beyond the capability of the computers, the most significant event I can think of was the uncontained engine failure on the A380, where it took an augmented crew a number of HOURS to work through all the warnings and errors that the systems threw up before they could make a decision on how to safely land it. The thought of trying to do all of that in the middle of a tropical storm doesn't bear thinking about, given the significant structural damage that the failure caused, trying to safely fly a damaged aircraft in extreme weather for that length of time while you work out if it's actually safe, or possible to land it is not a nice thought.

    There was a report recently on AVHerald of a 380 that refused to land at Manchester, so they ended up diverting to Heathrow, as the runway was longer, but we don't have the details of why that happened yet, all we know is that something with the automation threw it's toys out of the pram, and gave the crew the issue to solve, as it couldn't do so. While that's still possible, unmanned flight isn't going to happen.

    So, there will still be jobs at the sharp end of the aircraft for some time to come. As to the quality and longevity of that job, I can't predict it, I do know that it's changed massively over the last 20 years, for all the reasons outlined above, and it for sure will continue to change over the next 20 years.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,566 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    A classic example of this was a thing we used to do on the 747-4, you could use any runway, the scenario was from a "clear take off" position, start the stop watch, take off, climb to 10,000 Ft, and put it back on the runway again, shortest time wins. No other rules, other than don't break the sim! CAVOK, zero wind, any runway for the landing, so relatively easy in some respects
    You really needed to shut down all 4 engines to make this more fun.....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    Surely the more obvious threat to pilot jobs would be a move to single pilot flight decks rather than pilotless aircraft. With the pilot acting as backup to an automated system for the SHTF scenarios above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭martinsvi


    hardCopy wrote: »
    Surely the more obvious threat to pilot jobs would be a move to single pilot flight decks rather than pilotless aircraft. With the pilot acting as backup to an automated system for the SHTF scenarios above.

    I don't think it's an obvious threat at all, especially after Germanwings crash.

    Pilot incapacitation happens somewhere every day, with that in mind, I'm absolutely certain that a First Officer will always cost less than an always increasing public liability insurance.

    The whole principle of the automation and multi crew principle works on the premise that the "autopilot" is just a tool to relieve workload, it must be treated almost as a member of a crew and it's actions should be cross checked and validated. The moment you take out the multi crew principle and leave someone as a "backup" to a fully automated system - what you will end up is, when things go south, that person will literally have no situation awareness or metal capacity to deal with the sudden issue at hand. To take it even a step further, I'm pretty certain that that most single pilot jets will end up with their skippers sound asleep


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    smurfjed wrote: »
    You really needed to shut down all 4 engines to make this more fun.....

    Effectively, we did :D The fastest way was to close the throttles at about 8500 Ft, and zoom climb through 10,000 Ft, so it was on the verge of a stall, then throw everything out, flaps, spoilers, gear, and if you had to use power again before touchdown, you'd blown it.

    I still have memories of doing a straight in over Stonecutters at about 6000 Fpm descent rate on the run that got me the best time of the day :D. It was all about looking out of the window, and working out how to get it back on effectively dead stick. Didn't bother to stow the spoilers, there wasn't time.

    (And yes, on a different occasions, my "friend" did give me all four off on a 747-4 once, at about 5000 Ft downwind, which got my attention. Managed to (just) put it on the crosswind runway, albeit VERY close to the threshold.)

    They were fun sessions, in the right sense of the word, but with a serious underlying intent, we learnt a hell of a lot about the extremes of the envelope of whichever type we were in on the day, which was what we were trying to achieve, so that the software we were producing was capable of accurately modelling the extremes as well as the "normal" performance.

    Another trick my friend pulled on us was in a large twin, (like the 777), doing a descending turn at flight idle, and fail the inboard engine. It was surprising how many people ended up with some "interesting" bank angles not long after, the combination of the drag of the dead engine with the power from the good one during the transition from the descending turn caught quite a few out, and getting it back the right way up was a challenge, as it often needed the good engine throttled back to get enough control authority to be able to roll back, which didn't come naturally, especially at lower levels and speeds.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    martinsvi wrote: »
    The moment you take out the multi crew principle and leave someone as a "backup" to a fully automated system - what you will end up is, when things go south, that person will literally have no situation awareness or metal capacity to deal with the sudden issue at hand. To take it even a step further, I'm pretty certain that that most single pilot jets will end up with their skippers sound asleep

    And both scenarios are unfortunately what has happened on more than a few occasions already, even with 2 or more crew on the flight deck, (AF447 being the most obvious) the crew are becoming increasingly subservient to the automation, but when for some reason it no longer works, they are left with an aircraft that may be very hard to fly, and they have no experience (and sometimes no training either) in how to actually keep the thing flying.

    On some long haul flights, it's already SOP for the cabin crew chief to contact the flight deck every 30 or so minutes, just to make sure that there is someone awake at the sharp end.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Growler!!!


    On some long haul flights, it's already SOP for the cabin crew chief to contact the flight deck every 30 or so minutes, just to make sure that there is someone awake at the sharp end.

    I work for a short haul regional carrier and the SOP is cabin crew are to make contact every 20 mins! It's to check on our welfare.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    Growler!!! wrote: »
    I work for a short haul regional carrier and the SOP is cabin crew are to make contact every 20 mins! It's to check on our welfare.


    Ahh, OK, so even more frequent check that used to be the case, though that may also be as a result of the secure door policy, which has changed a lot, and not always for the better.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    cuterob wrote: »
    The general public are not going to get on an airplane which has no one in the cockpit, end of.

    If they are confident it is safe (which will come one day), not only the public will accept it but they will even ask for it.

    It won't happen tomorrow but in a few decades I don't see why not (and certainly public trust won't be the show-stopper, only technology is but that is only temporary).

    First step will probably be to get the tech on board and still keep the crew in the cockpit to make sure it can fully take over if something goes wrong with the machine. If there are no incidents one day they will remove the copilot and there will only be one human backup left. And after some more time with no incident ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭The King of Dalriada


    As we say... We're the only people in the company that have to ask to go for a piss.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54 ✭✭Mickey_D


    If the media reported that their was a pilot shortage in 1902 would people have believed it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    @ NotHarryPotter
    High Definition Airport Radars are custom designed to pick up people/animals as well as vehicles.
    Magnetrons, Klystrons, multi frequency, doppler effects are all employed. The range is short the location is central you can perform miracles with power, signal processing and display enhancements. High Definition Radar is essential when visibility is zero in snow, blowing snow, fog, torrential rain. You cannot tell an aircraft about to land to come back in 4 hours when things are better. Instrument Landing Systems allow aircraft to take off and land in near zero visibility conditions. When the Controller can see the runway HD radar is not essential. One of the issues is animals in the shrubbery that can dart across without notice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭notharrypotter


    Hasschu wrote: »
    @ NotHarryPotter
    High Definition Airport Radars are custom designed to pick up people/animals as well as vehicles.
    Magnetrons, Klystrons, multi frequency, doppler effects are all employed. The range is short the location is central you can perform miracles with power, signal processing and display enhancements. High Definition Radar is essential when visibility is zero in snow, blowing snow, fog, torrential rain. You cannot tell an aircraft about to land to come back in 4 hours when things are better. Instrument Landing Systems allow aircraft to take off and land in near zero visibility conditions. When the Controller can see the runway HD radar is not essential. One of the issues is animals in the shrubbery that can dart across without notice.
    Curious and hijacking the thread slightly.
    Can you please post a link to somewhere that uses one for the purposes you describe?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    It is unlikely that a link exists for that type of equipment since they are built to specs with a worldwide market of only a few hundred. Since the advent of Homeland Security they would be classified as security devices. I installed the first one in the late 1990s, later models would have much improved signal processing and displays.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,566 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Has the pilot shortage arrived?
    Will let you know when i see salary packages improve.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭KwackerJack


    smurfjed wrote: »
    Will let you know when i see salary packages improve.

    They cant be that bad! I know a few pilots based in Dublin flying EU and they are pretty happy. Good standard of living and a job they love.

    Is that not whats important?

    Id be delighted to be an Airline Pilot as long as I could pay the bills and have a good standard of living. I'm in it for the flying not the money.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    @ NotHarryPotter
    Airport Surveillance Radar
    Kelvin Hughes has an off the shelf one. The details are skimpy for security reasons. You have to take its capability from "Threats from individual persons" which indicates it can detect a person. They have battlefield ones as well.
    When I was involved the problem to be solved was low visibility from the Air Traffic Controller in the Tower and Pilot perspective. Video cameras, infrared and so on would not be useful so we did not use them since the Controllers had clear line of sight to all areas of the Airport. In nuclear power stations, oil refineries where surveillance is done from windowless rooms video cameras would augment the radar. Looking at the photos I would say what I used was more powerful and sensitive. At the time (1990s') there was nothing on the shelf and we involved the king of Radar namely Raytheon and subcontractors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭_Tombstone_


    They cant be that bad! I know a few pilots based in Dublin flying EU and they are pretty happy. Good standard of living and a job they love.

    Is that not whats important?

    Id be delighted to be an Airline Pilot as long as I could pay the bills and have a good standard of living. I'm in it for the flying not the money.

    BMW 7 series start at €100000.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭The King of Dalriada



    Id be delighted to be an Airline Pilot as long as I could pay the bills and have a good standard of living. I'm in it for the flying not the money.

    And it's exactly that attitude that has created the race to the bottom, that as us were we are now. I suppose you'd be one of those pay-to-fly heroes too?
    You do nothing but drive down the the conditions for everyone else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    And it's exactly that attitude that has created the race to the bottom, that as us were we are now. I suppose you'd be one of those pay-to-fly heroes too?
    You do nothing but drive down the the conditions for everyone else.

    On the other hand this is just offer and demand isn't it? If many people think a job is enjoyoble by itself (excluding the money aspect), there will be more applicants and it will drive wages down.
    Whereas if the job seems very unattractive and no-one finds it personally gratifying, there will be fewer applicants and it will drive wages up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 581 ✭✭✭pepe the prawn


    And it's exactly that attitude that has created the race to the bottom, that as us were we are now. I suppose you'd be one of those pay-to-fly heroes too?
    You do nothing but drive down the the conditions for everyone else.

    So what position should a newly trained pilot take? Just go and do something else because people already in the industry are unhappy with current conditions? it's the people already in the industry have the power to change things, not the people outside that are trying to get in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭KwackerJack


    And it's exactly that attitude that has created the race to the bottom, that as us were we are now. I suppose you'd be one of those pay-to-fly heroes too?
    You do nothing but drive down the the conditions for everyone else.

    Just like every job going......get over it!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Growler!!!


    There is a shortage of experienced pilots at the moment.

    In my own case I've been cold contacted by 2 airlines, one by phone and another through Email over the last month asking if I was interested in joining their companies. This is the first time in my flying career this has happened. In my own company there have been many many resignations over the past 2 -3 months with captains and f/o's moving to Ryanair, Cityjet, Cathay Pacific, Emirates and flydubai to name but a few.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement