5 ms·

"If airplanes are to re-connect with their potential customers- or their potential to society- they desperately need an update." Wait, what? Airplane travel is

"If airplanes are to re-connect with their potential customers- or their potential to society- they desperately need an update." Wait, what? Airplane travel is thriving more than ever. Passenger rail is dying, the FAA is forecasting a >4x increase in the number of general aviation pilots in the next 20 years [1], and it's increasingly more affordable for the upper middle class to fly charted jets [2]. [1] http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2010-2030/ http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecast... [2] http://jetsuite.com/suitedeal http://jetsuite.com/suitedeal

mahyarm 14y ago
So when will pilots not be paid horribly?
- noveltyaccount 14y ago
  I was thinking about this recently - piloting used to be a high skill job, but now pilots are largely relegated to takeoff and landing--a technician's job. I expect more of air travel to be automated in the future (like, why do pilots and ATC speak through a radio instead of using something automatic). More automation -> lower skill required -> less pay in the future.
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    ..except for the law of leaky abstractions, which is what get you accidents like AF447. Until the automation has situational awareness, you still need skilled pilots. Piloting is still a high skill job, it's just that there's a surplus of young people who really love flying and will accept a crappy salary to live their dream.
    - leoedin 14y ago
      AF447 was caused by a lack of systems understanding by the pilots. If they had simply done nothing, the natural stability of the aircraft would have kept it flying until the pitot tube de-icers had effect and the aircraft could return to autopilot. The triggering cause of AF447 was the icing of a pitot tube. The reason the aircraft flew into the ocean more or less fully stalled was poor pilot training and poor human interface design. I do agree with you that skilled pilots are a requirement. Systems are only as good as their sensors, and lack the flexibility that makes a manned system adaptable. However, AF447 is a fairly poor example of why we need pilots, as it was pretty much entirely pilot error which caused the crash.
      - gnaffle 14y ago
        That's true, however I think it's a good example of why we need skilled pilots that maintain situational awareness. The accident reports mentions that the pilots did not have training in high altitude hand flying, and the common belief seemed to be that it wasn't necessary because of automation.
    - ars 14y ago
      The crash of AF447 was caused by the pilot, not the electronics. If they had just done nothing it would not have crashed. Instead the pilot climbed until it stalled.
      - gnaffle 14y ago
        I didn't say it was caused by the electronics, but it was probably caused by pilot inexperience in manual flying at high altitude (among other things). There have been other cases, for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 where the autopilot put the plane in a dive because of a malfunctioning sensor and a software bug. If the pilots on that plane had done nothing like like you suggested the AF447 pilots should have done, what do you think would have happened then? Which is my entire point, until you have situationally aware computers, you need situationally aware human pilots.
        ars 14y ago
        > If the pilots on that plane had done nothing like like you suggested the AF447 pilots should have done, what do you think would have happened then? The plane would have kept flying. Perhaps it would have flown out of the storm, perhaps it would have descended. Either way at some point it would have gotten low enough or warm/dry enough that the ice in the pitot tube would have melted (also the heater in the tube was on, but didn't have enough time to melt it), and the system would go back to normal and all would have been well. Instead they did pretty much the only thing that could doom it: They ascended. This despite knowing they were near the "coffin corner" - i.e. the highest safe altitude for the Jet. The pilot clearly panicked and didn't want to crash into the ocean, so he went up, and it was exactly the wrong thing to do. Your point about pilot inexperience in manual flying, is close. But from what I read it was actually that the pilot was used to the computer taking over and not letting him fly in a dangerous manner, this caused him to try ascend to the point of stalling the plane because he believed the computer would stop him. So you end up with the worst of both worlds: A human who relies on the computer, taking over in a situation with no computer. You have to pick: Either computer all the time, or no computer. Perhaps computer assistance, but no control? Certainly computer override is no good (i.e. this lets you max out the controls and the computer will adjust them to the ideal levels). > you need situationally aware human pilots. This was impossible for both of them. The windscreen was completely blank, and (some of) the instruments were disabled. Neither the pilot nor the human had any idea what their situation was. What they should have done was remember where they were and assume they were more of less in the same situation.

mahyarm 14y ago

So when will pilots not be paid horribly?

noveltyaccount 14y ago
I was thinking about this recently - piloting used to be a high skill job, but now pilots are largely relegated to takeoff and landing--a technician's job. I expect more of air travel to be automated in the future (like, why do pilots and ATC speak through a radio instead of using something automatic). More automation -> lower skill required -> less pay in the future.
- gnaffle 14y ago
  ..except for the law of leaky abstractions, which is what get you accidents like AF447. Until the automation has situational awareness, you still need skilled pilots. Piloting is still a high skill job, it's just that there's a surplus of young people who really love flying and will accept a crappy salary to live their dream.
  - leoedin 14y ago
    AF447 was caused by a lack of systems understanding by the pilots. If they had simply done nothing, the natural stability of the aircraft would have kept it flying until the pitot tube de-icers had effect and the aircraft could return to autopilot. The triggering cause of AF447 was the icing of a pitot tube. The reason the aircraft flew into the ocean more or less fully stalled was poor pilot training and poor human interface design. I do agree with you that skilled pilots are a requirement. Systems are only as good as their sensors, and lack the flexibility that makes a manned system adaptable. However, AF447 is a fairly poor example of why we need pilots, as it was pretty much entirely pilot error which caused the crash.
    - gnaffle 14y ago
      That's true, however I think it's a good example of why we need skilled pilots that maintain situational awareness. The accident reports mentions that the pilots did not have training in high altitude hand flying, and the common belief seemed to be that it wasn't necessary because of automation.
  - ars 14y ago
    The crash of AF447 was caused by the pilot, not the electronics. If they had just done nothing it would not have crashed. Instead the pilot climbed until it stalled.
    - gnaffle 14y ago
      I didn't say it was caused by the electronics, but it was probably caused by pilot inexperience in manual flying at high altitude (among other things). There have been other cases, for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 where the autopilot put the plane in a dive because of a malfunctioning sensor and a software bug. If the pilots on that plane had done nothing like like you suggested the AF447 pilots should have done, what do you think would have happened then? Which is my entire point, until you have situationally aware computers, you need situationally aware human pilots.
      - ars 14y ago
        > If the pilots on that plane had done nothing like like you suggested the AF447 pilots should have done, what do you think would have happened then? The plane would have kept flying. Perhaps it would have flown out of the storm, perhaps it would have descended. Either way at some point it would have gotten low enough or warm/dry enough that the ice in the pitot tube would have melted (also the heater in the tube was on, but didn't have enough time to melt it), and the system would go back to normal and all would have been well. Instead they did pretty much the only thing that could doom it: They ascended. This despite knowing they were near the "coffin corner" - i.e. the highest safe altitude for the Jet. The pilot clearly panicked and didn't want to crash into the ocean, so he went up, and it was exactly the wrong thing to do. Your point about pilot inexperience in manual flying, is close. But from what I read it was actually that the pilot was used to the computer taking over and not letting him fly in a dangerous manner, this caused him to try ascend to the point of stalling the plane because he believed the computer would stop him. So you end up with the worst of both worlds: A human who relies on the computer, taking over in a situation with no computer. You have to pick: Either computer all the time, or no computer. Perhaps computer assistance, but no control? Certainly computer override is no good (i.e. this lets you max out the controls and the computer will adjust them to the ideal levels). > you need situationally aware human pilots. This was impossible for both of them. The windscreen was completely blank, and (some of) the instruments were disabled. Neither the pilot nor the human had any idea what their situation was. What they should have done was remember where they were and assume they were more of less in the same situation.