Airports and air travel of the future

[Mxsmanic]

See

http://news.com.com/Will+airport+of+the+future+fly/2100-1008_3-6115126.html

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:32:02 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>See
>
>http://news.com.com/Will+airport+of+the+future+fly/2100-1008_3-6115126.html

By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Published: September 13, 2006, 4:00 AM PDT

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--The airport of tomorrow might have virtual
intelligence agents that check your bags, "smart dust" sensor
networks that vet passengers heading through security and commuter
pilots who fly the plane from a home office.


When UAVs become more developed, they may gluttonously pilot
themselves on airline flights. :-(

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:15:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

gluttonously = autonomously

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> See
>
> http://news.com.com/Will+airport+of+the+future+fly/2100-1008_3-6115126.html
>

When pigs fly...

[Jose[_1_]]

>>http://news.com.com/Will+airport+of+the+future+fly/2100-1008_3-6115126.html
> When pigs fly...

Oh, I dunno... follow the money.

Who would =really= benefit from technologies that quietly deliver
individulals' personal data to a government agency? Can we do this with
the individual either unaware of or uncaring about the immense privacy
invasions this would ultimately mean?

Look at the "savings cards" issued by grocers.

'nuf said.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in
:

>>>http://news.com.com/Will+airport+of+the+future+fly/2100-1008_3-
6115126.h
>>>tml
>> When pigs fly...
>
> Oh, I dunno... follow the money.
>
> Who would =really= benefit from technologies that quietly deliver
> individulals' personal data to a government agency? Can we do this with
> the individual either unaware of or uncaring about the immense privacy
> invasions this would ultimately mean?
>
> Look at the "savings cards" issued by grocers.
>
> 'nuf said.
>
> Jose

Yeah, follow the money.

Grocers use Savings Cards as a profit generating tool. By getting your
personal information and identifying your demographics, they can save
money on advertising and increase marketing returns by sending only the
proper ads to your house or on your phone. It is the CORE of their
business. They have been pushing Newspapers to accomodate their needs for
years, and the newspaper industry as a whole is suffering for it. It's
totally and completely driven by advertising, sales and profits. The
advertising industry spends gazillions of dollars every year on market
research, demographics testing, and list generation because it's how
companies generate revenue. And so anything that improves their research
is easy to subsidize.

It is not about government conspiracy. It is about corporate profits.

All this techology that Evans is talking about will not generate profits
for anyone except a small number of technology companies. Perhaps it will
eliminate jobs, or more likely it will take low-paying, low-skill
screener jobs and replace them with higher paying higher skilled
technology jobs that will probably get sourced to India anyway. Not
something that a government official is going to push through.

And the RFID chip idea is not innovative or new technology - we've had EZ
Pass on our highways in New York for over 10 years, and RFID has been
used in the warehousing industry longer than that.

The article starts off with a set of claims that is completely ridiculous
("... commuter pilots who fly the plane from a home office") and then
goes on to basically say that Evans is a dreamer, no one with money (ie:
the CFO) is buying in.

I don't buy in either.

[Jose[_1_]]

> All this techology that Evans is talking about will not generate profits
> for anyone except a small number of technology companies.

.... but the tracking ability of some of the proposed (and possible)
technologies would benefit more than just the tech companies.
Government would love to get this kind of information on us, and we'd
gladly surrender it in exchange for shorter lines (which, like
"commercial free TV", is a chimera).

Those in government can then use this to increase their own power and
wealth.

> The article starts off with a set of claims that is completely ridiculous
> ("... commuter pilots who fly the plane from a home office")

Well, while I don't believe this will come to pass (for many reasons) it
is certainly not beyond the pale. UAVs are being deployed right now,
even when they are not appropriate (IMHO) ways of accomplishing the
stated tasks. I don't know how much of a factor pilot salaries are in
commercial aviation (I suspect gas costs far more than pilots) but I do
not for a moment think that this kind of technology (UAV) is impossible
to shove down our throats. But it will be an evolution, and we will
barely know what is happening. Hopefully we'll all be at a much higher
flight level by then.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Frank F. Matthews]

Jose wrote:
>> All this techology that Evans is talking about will not generate profits
>> for anyone except a small number of technology companies.
>
>
> ... but the tracking ability of some of the proposed (and possible)
> technologies would benefit more than just the tech companies. Government
> would love to get this kind of information on us, and we'd gladly
> surrender it in exchange for shorter lines (which, like "commercial free
> TV", is a chimera).
>
> Those in government can then use this to increase their own power and
> wealth.
>
>> The article starts off with a set of claims that is completely
>> ridiculous
>> ("... commuter pilots who fly the plane from a home office")
>
>
> Well, while I don't believe this will come to pass (for many reasons) it
> is certainly not beyond the pale. UAVs are being deployed right now,
> even when they are not appropriate (IMHO) ways of accomplishing the
> stated tasks. I don't know how much of a factor pilot salaries are in
> commercial aviation (I suspect gas costs far more than pilots) but I do
> not for a moment think that this kind of technology (UAV) is impossible
> to shove down our throats. But it will be an evolution, and we will
> barely know what is happening. Hopefully we'll all be at a much higher
> flight level by then.
>
> Jose

I won't say that it is impossible. I will say that it is impossible
within my lifetime. It is possible that remote management will be
available for cargo planes in a couple of decades. I might believe it
when I see such technology being deployed in situations where it would
be of real benefit. Combat jets for example. Today a major restriction
on aircraft performance in combat is protecting a pilot. When most of
the air force combat planes are run by sergeants on the ground I may
begin to believe.

Oh all right they will have to be majors so that their bosses all can be
generals but they will be doing sergeant's jobs.

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in news:o_eOg.1080$GR.560
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

>> All this techology that Evans is talking about will not generate
profits
>> for anyone except a small number of technology companies.
>
> ... but the tracking ability of some of the proposed (and possible)
> technologies would benefit more than just the tech companies.
> Government would love to get this kind of information on us, and we'd
> gladly surrender it in exchange for shorter lines (which, like
> "commercial free TV", is a chimera).
>
> Those in government can then use this to increase their own power and
> wealth.

But everything in government either happens faster than anyone can notice,
or takes an extra, extra, extra long time. And it's only been about 10
years since the technology has been mainstream, so it will not happen for
another 10 years at least.

>> The article starts off with a set of claims that is completely
ridiculous
>> ("... commuter pilots who fly the plane from a home office")


> Well, while I don't believe this will come to pass (for many reasons) it
> is certainly not beyond the pale. UAVs are being deployed right now,
> even when they are not appropriate (IMHO) ways of accomplishing the
> stated tasks. I don't know how much of a factor pilot salaries are in
> commercial aviation (I suspect gas costs far more than pilots) but I do
> not for a moment think that this kind of technology (UAV) is impossible
> to shove down our throats. But it will be an evolution, and we will
> barely know what is happening. Hopefully we'll all be at a much higher
> flight level by then.

Technically it's not a problem, but politically it's too "scary" to way
too many political groups, including the AOPA (they're already complaining
about UAVs!)

The upside isn't there for enough people to create any momentum behind it.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> I don't know how much of a factor pilot salaries are in
> commercial aviation (I suspect gas costs far more than pilots) but I do
> not for a moment think that this kind of technology (UAV) is impossible
> to shove down our throats.

Crew salaries (in total) cost about the same as fuel, each being about
a fourth of total operating costs. Pilots are a small minority of
employees in most companies, but they are also the best paid by far,
especially for large commercial transports at large airlines, so they
may represent a significant percentage of total crew salaries, but I
don't have a figure for that. I know that at Air France, the
president of the company ranks #300 in salary, after the pilots.

Eliminating pilots would provide vast savings. However, there is
still nothing more versatile than a human being when it comes to
handling the unexpected. (For normal and abnormal situations
anticipated by designers of automated flight systems, the automation
usually handles the situations much better than a human pilot.)

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Frank F. Matthews writes:

> I won't say that it is impossible. I will say that it is impossible
> within my lifetime. It is possible that remote management will be
> available for cargo planes in a couple of decades. I might believe it
> when I see such technology being deployed in situations where it would
> be of real benefit. Combat jets for example. Today a major restriction
> on aircraft performance in combat is protecting a pilot. When most of
> the air force combat planes are run by sergeants on the ground I may
> begin to believe.

Then the time is now, because UAVs are already in use and are being
piloted by relatively unskilled specialists on the ground.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The upside isn't there for enough people to create any momentum behind it.

I sure hope so.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Then the time is now, because UAVs are already in use and are being
> piloted by relatively unskilled specialists on the ground.
>

What makes you think they are unskilled.

Here are the requirements of one company currently taking applications.
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobs/CA/Adelanto/Other/J958355RP


a.. Travel (premium compensation) for 6 to 8 months (2-3 month rotational
schedule) of the year both within and outside the Continental United States.
a.. Must be able to obtain a Department of Defense "Secret" Security
Clearance.
a.. Commercial pilot's license and instrument rating
a.. Instructor's rating is preferred.
a.. Prior experience in UAV operation, mission planning and actual control
of aircraft is desirable.

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> a.. Prior experience in UAV operation, mission planning and actual control
> of aircraft is desirable.

And therein is the requirement that will disqualify most. How many
candidates actually apply to this company with UAV experience?


--
Peter

[Jose[_1_]]

>>a.. Prior experience in UAV operation [...] is desirable.
> And therein is the requirement that will disqualify most.

No, it won't disqualify anyone, as it's not a requirement.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>> a.. Prior experience in UAV operation, mission planning and actual
>> control
>> of aircraft is desirable.
>
> And therein is the requirement that will disqualify most. How many
> candidates actually apply to this company with UAV experience?
>
>

I would assume those that meet this requirement are ex-military.

I'll be interested to see if the FAA will come up with a UAV certificate or
rating at some point and give some credit for that "flight time" for higher
ratings. If they did it might be a neat new way for commercial pilots to
gain hours for ATP.

[Frank F. Matthews]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Frank F. Matthews writes:
>
>
>>I won't say that it is impossible. I will say that it is impossible
>>within my lifetime. It is possible that remote management will be
>>available for cargo planes in a couple of decades. I might believe it
>>when I see such technology being deployed in situations where it would
>>be of real benefit. Combat jets for example. Today a major restriction
>>on aircraft performance in combat is protecting a pilot. When most of
>>the air force combat planes are run by sergeants on the ground I may
>>begin to believe.
>
>
> Then the time is now, because UAVs are already in use and are being
> piloted by relatively unskilled specialists on the ground.
>

Currently UAV's are relatively slow and primarily for observation.
Although occasionally they can carry &/or direct bombs.

They are not of the sophistication that I was talking about.

[Frank F. Matthews]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jose writes:
>
>
>>I don't know how much of a factor pilot salaries are in
>>commercial aviation (I suspect gas costs far more than pilots) but I do
>>not for a moment think that this kind of technology (UAV) is impossible
>>to shove down our throats.
>
>
> Crew salaries (in total) cost about the same as fuel, each being about
> a fourth of total operating costs. Pilots are a small minority of
> employees in most companies, but they are also the best paid by far,
> especially for large commercial transports at large airlines, so they
> may represent a significant percentage of total crew salaries, but I
> don't have a figure for that. I know that at Air France, the
> president of the company ranks #300 in salary, after the pilots.
>
> Eliminating pilots would provide vast savings. However, there is
> still nothing more versatile than a human being when it comes to
> handling the unexpected. (For normal and abnormal situations
> anticipated by designers of automated flight systems, the automation
> usually handles the situations much better than a human pilot.)
>

That is the point. For remote piloting to work it must be reasonably
competent in emergency situations.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> What makes you think they are unskilled.

The articles I've read on it. The remote pilots are not unskilled in
the sense of being pulled in off the street to fly something with no
training or experience, but they are unskilled in the sense that they
don't need to be licensed military or private/commercial pilots. The
heavy computerization of the interface makes it possible to pilot the
UAVs to a large extent without in-depth knowledge of flying.

Of course, the standards would be higher if the aircraft were carrying
passengers, but I don't expect to see that for a very long time
indeed.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Frank F. Matthews writes:

> That is the point. For remote piloting to work it must be reasonably
> competent in emergency situations.

And that is why I don't think pilots will disappear on aircraft
carrying passengers at any time in the foreseeable future. The
safety-of-life risk is already there with or without a pilot, since
there are other human beings on board; and the undeniable flexibility
of a human pilot in unforeseen situations is cheap insurance against
mishaps.

The main problem of commercial pilots in the future will be
increasingly severe boredom, and the difficulty of keeping skills
sharp when most flights will be completely automated, eventually
amounting to just pushing a START button at the departure gate, and
pushing a STOP button at the destination.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:02:50 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>they are unskilled in the sense that they
>don't need to be licensed military or private/commercial pilots.

I would be most interested in seeing a credible source that
substantiates that allegation. If aircraft are being operated in the
NAS (other than Part 103) by non-certificated operators, it would
paint the FAA in a bad light indeed.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> I would be most interested in seeing a credible source that
> substantiates that allegation. If aircraft are being operated in the
> NAS (other than Part 103) by non-certificated operators, it would
> paint the FAA in a bad light indeed.

The military does what it wants, but from what I recall of the story,
the UAVs in question were not being used in the USA, but in various
military theaters. There are UAVs being used to patrol borders, I
think, but I don't know who flies them.

It's not clear that a remote pilot would need the same credentials as
a pilot in the aircraft. In fact, it's not even clear that the FAA
would have jurisdiction over him. Indeed, one can imagine an aircraft
in which the computer is effectively the PIC, with a human being just
being the equivalent of a mission planner or director, or a weapons
specialist / reconnaissance technician.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> What makes you think they are unskilled.
>
> The articles I've read on it. The remote pilots are not unskilled in
> the sense of being pulled in off the street to fly something with no
> training or experience, but they are unskilled in the sense that they
> don't need to be licensed military or private/commercial pilots. The
> heavy computerization of the interface makes it possible to pilot the
> UAVs to a large extent without in-depth knowledge of flying.
>

Well, you'd be wrong. I posted the qualifications for UAV pilot that one
company was requiring and they were hardly unskilled. Commercial with
Instrument and instruction UAV exp. preferred.

The military now uses rated officers for many of the UAV flying jobs.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Well, you'd be wrong. I posted the qualifications for UAV pilot that one
> company was requiring and they were hardly unskilled. Commercial with
> Instrument and instruction UAV exp. preferred.

That was one company.

> The military now uses rated officers for many of the UAV flying jobs.

What is a "rated officer"? And what about the other UAV flying jobs?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Well, you'd be wrong. I posted the qualifications for UAV pilot that one
>> company was requiring and they were hardly unskilled. Commercial with
>> Instrument and instruction UAV exp. preferred.
>
> That was one company.

Yes that was one company. It also happen to be the first one that came up in
a google search that was something along the lines of 'UAV pilot
qualifications' Here's another one with the that search string that is
pretty much the same.

http://www.flitejobs.com/aviation_jobs_board/view_job.php?id=421

So two picked at random while not a perfect study is a pretty good idea of
the requirements.

>
>> The military now uses rated officers for many of the UAV flying jobs.
>
> What is a "rated officer"? And what about the other UAV flying jobs?
>

A USAF rated officer is an officer that is rated to fly an aircraft.