Correct sir. And a humans interpetation of what those instruments are telling you and local knowledge. Dude in the basement is not the guy I want then.
the difference is you could have many dudes in the basement helping you if required all sitting in a less stressful environment. making better decisions in most cases
Apollo 13…
Thank you for the debate. I would be interested when you take your family on a vacation to parts unknown and tell your wife and kids, “Oh by the way, nobody is flying this plane. Some dude in the basement in who knows where is taking care of us”. Good night sir.
yes the dude in ATC is keeping you alive, the pilot is oblivious to mid air collisions, decisions made far away.
What i am really getting at is the technology is all there, its just getting our heads around using it.
Every commercial pilot I know says they could be replaced…
Thanks for the discussion.
No. Colregs requires lookout by all means which includes hearing. I’m sure they could arrange a device to hear fog signals and determine whether they are forward of the beam, but I don’t know of any, so we still rely on humans.
That’s all possible, but underwater drones cannot be communicated with adequately.
Naval submarines can receive messages submerged from hugely expensive naval radio stations transmitting VLF to an antenna the sub trails behind which can be set at less depth than the sub itself so nothing is above the surface. Low frequencies are necessary to get any ppenetration of the radio wave for short distances (metres) under the water. Such systems don’t lend themselves to commercial use.
Also the sub cannot transmit on those frequencies (the transmitter would be bigger than the sub) so they must put an antenna in the air to transmit on higher frequencies eg to a satellite, increasing the risks of collision if only temporarily.
It can be done, but why would we?
because its the steady unrelenting march of automation since we invented the wheel.
You dont have to communicate with a device once its on its way.
The everything aware technology is required and thats not yet here.
Lots of money being spent on that as it has huge uses
The conversation with autonomous ships is well down the road, reliable unmanned power sources will be made once there is a demand.
Why fly with a pilot?
My father an airplane guy was a Director of the C-17 aircraft computer systems at McDonnell/Douglas.
He said it could fly itself with 7 computer systems with multiple redundancy.
He described passing a hangar at Edward’s AFB with a landing gear with six flat tires. Test pilot forgot to take the brakes off (to stop wheel spin) after takeoff and before landing. They stopped quick.
He never flew in any piloted by Air Force pilots as he felt initial flying in simulator 350 hours while cheap was not high on his confidence meter.
test pilot forgot…computers cant forget
The maritime community is steeped in tradition, but industrialists are not interested in nostalgia. If reducing the size or eliminating the crew will improve the bottom line, it will be done. It’s being done…
agreed, the engineer was removed from aircraft as the equipment got better, cant stop progress.
Boeing is having a helluva time getting their new planes qualified. Because of engineering and software “Difficulties”. Even the guy in the “Basement” couldn’t prevent the nasty results with loss of many lives. He had the wrong tools as well as the pilots by instructions from Boeings “Experts”. I will pick my airlines to fly, which you are free to do as well. I realize these planes are highly automated, and can fly with the pilots perhaps having a soup and salad on the way. Still want a human at the helm and an engineer to fix the “New Technology” when it goes south. Same opinion regarding ships at sea.
those planes crashed as the pilots didnt read and understand what Boeing had written
Not even sure the Airlines gave them the data, one of my mates that was doing simulator instruction said it was obvious that some airlines didnt tell tell the pilots about the changes, scary…
There isnt an engineer on aircraft anymore, its gets fixed after it arrives…hopefully before it departs…something that didnt happen to the Indonesian one.
DC-3 got the best record, its very safe
HMI. The “approved” equipment in the marine world would never get off the shelf in retail.
Hopefully if there is a problem while underway, gets solved before landing. Or as relating to maritime, before entering port. That guy in the basement is not gonna hand you a few tools to get you to the dock .
lol, how does that happen, wing walker…
I have been civil with you sir. You championed the new systems only to relate to the safety of the DC3 propellor driven plane with full crews and much less technology. Now, you have given me a nice chuckle.
nice
I was just pointing out that an aircraft has the gear designed to suit there is no engineer and a ship hasnt changed as they do have engineers as they move continuously so that fits together just fine.
If the model changed that power sources could be swapped out at ports I think we might find at sea there is no engineer?
Ok , I will bite. As a mariner, I will no way sail without an engineer or two on board. They are worth their weight in gold. With weather approaching. I am not going to an"APP" or the guy in the basement when our machinery has a burp. Have pulled more than a few chain falls and turned wrenches to help our chief and crew. We had very modern equipment, but still subject to fail at the worst possible time. I don’t fly airplanes, but have an ungodly amount of miles riding them. I think you know by now my preference how I choose to fly. Are we done here?
Yup. Tow pins never fail in calm weather. . . . .
so which airline do you fly that only has grey haired pilots, that would be my choice too?
or which airline still has aircraft so old they still have engineers in the cockpit?