Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

fellow

"demand For Pilots Set To Soar" Says Boeing

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11328092

The global aviation industry will need to train and employ almost half a million new pilots over the next 20 years, according to the US aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

In addition, more than half a million new maintenance staff must be found, the aerospace giant said.

Currently, some 233,000 pilots and 100,000 mechanics and engineers work for airlines worldwide, it said.

About 40% of the extra demand would come from Asia, Boeing said.

Limited training capacity

Some 466,650 newly trained pilots and 596,500 newly trained maintenance staff will be needed between 2010 and 2029, Boeing predicted.

With demand set to rise particularly fast in Asia, especially in China, some 180,600 of the pilots and 220,000 of the mechanics would be needed there.

Adapting training regimes is a major challenge for the industry, said Roei Ganzarski, chief customer officer at Boeing Training and Flight Services.

"The infrastructure right now in the Asia Pacific is not necessarily on a scale that can address this entire requirement," he added.

Recovery in the air

Passenger numbers have rebounded well since a downturn in demand for air travel that accompanied the financial crisis and recession in several countries.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) said passenger traffic rose 9.2% in July compared with a year earlier. The strongest performance was in the Asia Pacific region, where growth rose by 10.9% year on year.

However, in Europe and North America, fragile consumer confidence could result in a slower pace of recovery, IATA's director general Giovanni Bisignani warned.

'A lot of new engineers'

In China, demand for pilots in could be twice or three times as great as the number going through current and planned training facilities, according to Mr Bisignani.

This might result in Chinese airlines recruiting pilots abroad, he predicted.

Boeing's forecasts are consistent with industry predictions of a doubling in air passengers by 2030, according to John Ostrower, a blog editor for the Flight Global website.

By then, the skills airlines will require its staff to have could be drastically different, he said.

"You're going to need a heck of a lot of new engineers, at a time when a large proportion of engineers, certainly in the US, are retiring," he said.

"The focus for these skills will move to places like Brazil, home of [the aircraft manufacturer] Embraer, where the engineering workforce is significantly younger".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Estate Agents talking up prices looking after their particular corner.....

Aircraft manufacturer talking up air plane driver shortages looking after their particular corner...

Not much to see here really is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they need to look at threads like this and realise that having a sack of meat at the controls us probably a good idea:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/419519-ba-747-crew-commended-1.html

Alternatively, look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation, realise that the majority are down to human error, and refuse to allow the fleshy incompetents anywhere near the controls, and also have some terminatoresque robot overseers to monitor the maintenance crew :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realise that the majority are down to human error

You're seeing a tiny minority of incidents in that list - the ones where the airframe actually hit the ground. There are many more incidents where it didn't crash because of human intervention, like the 747 in my example. Would a robot have had the capability to land a plane on the Hudson river, or would it have blindly attempted to reach a real airport? No doubt, one day we will have robots that can fly planes, but they will be more AI than software, closer to a pilot than an autopilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these new jets will be fly by wire- your pilot will be a game trained teenager sitting at home in his underwear.

Oh- they won't tell you this, of course- there will be cleaners in pilots uniforms sat up front. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're seeing a tiny minority of incidents in that list - the ones where the airframe actually hit the ground. There are many more incidents where it didn't crash because of human intervention, like the 747 in my example. Would a robot have had the capability to land a plane on the Hudson river, or would it have blindly attempted to reach a real airport? No doubt, one day we will have robots that can fly planes, but they will be more AI than software, closer to a pilot than an autopilot.

I guess it's a trade off between the cost benefits of robots that perform well 99% of the time, against the 1% of times a human pilot would make a difference.

Anyway I hear ryan air are sacking all their pilots and introducing a 'flight deck volunteer' scheme where the passengers fly the planes themselves- the perk being access to the toilet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those figures look like ******.

2.33 engineers to every pilot?

Try 50:1 at least. It makes the rest of the story appear to be written by an idiot, and have zero credibily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody writing on this thread will ever fly on an aircraft that does not contain a human pilot. Furthermore no commercial airliner will ever have less than two pilots.

It will simply not happen. Nobody in the industry expects it to happen. Nobody is working to make it happen.

Its not happening.

PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're seeing a tiny minority of incidents in that list - the ones where the airframe actually hit the ground. There are many more incidents where it didn't crash because of human intervention, like the 747 in my example. Would a robot have had the capability to land a plane on the Hudson river, or would it have blindly attempted to reach a real airport? No doubt, one day we will have robots that can fly planes, but they will be more AI than software, closer to a pilot than an autopilot.

The plane that ended up in the Hudson could have "blindly" returned to the airport, if the decision to do so was made immediately after the engines were damaged. This was demonstrated in a simulator. However, it was not possible to do that after a 30s delay required by humans to think about what to do. Furthermore, it was flown into the river by a computer as it was FBW. It is perfectly possible the pilot would have stalled it if it were a 737, but that is just speculation.

The bottom line is that the entire aviation industry is moving to FBW and the amount of automation will continue to increase. There is absolutely no reason why this should stop at some point short of the humans being replaced. Remember, not so long ago there used to be a navigator, a radio operator and a engineer on the flight deck in addition to the pilots. If they could be replaced by computers, there is no reason why the pilots could not.

It's not like we don't have drones capable of autonomously flying half-way around the world already.

Errm, maybe this will somehow affect houseprices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's true, but it will only be true for a while. Robots are improving rapidly, whereas humans are not. At some point robot driven planes will become safer, then very rapidly after that, far safer.

EMP ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good news story for the elections.

funny, its not really a good news story, but one of the nature of humanity...we grow old, retire and die.

Or maybe wall street has forgotten this as they didnt give 2 cents about the value of other peoples pensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's true, but it will only be true for a while. Robots are improving rapidly, whereas humans are not. At some point robot driven planes will become safer, then very rapidly after that, far safer.

And what about when the "robot" malfunctions? like the enormous 200 ton "robot" that malfunctioned and nearly killed everyone in this story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody writing on this thread will ever fly on an aircraft that does not contain a human pilot. Furthermore no commercial airliner will ever have less than two pilots.

It will simply not happen. Nobody in the industry expects it to happen. Nobody is working to make it happen.

Its not happening.

PS

are you quite sure about that? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plane that ended up in the Hudson could have "blindly" returned to the airport, if the decision to do so was made immediately after the engines were damaged. This was demonstrated in a simulator. However, it was not possible to do that after a 30s delay required by humans to think about what to do. Furthermore, it was flown into the river by a computer as it was FBW. It is perfectly possible the pilot would have stalled it if it were a 737, but that is just speculation.

The bottom line is that the entire aviation industry is moving to FBW and the amount of automation will continue to increase. There is absolutely no reason why this should stop at some point short of the humans being replaced. Remember, not so long ago there used to be a navigator, a radio operator and a engineer on the flight deck in addition to the pilots. If they could be replaced by computers, there is no reason why the pilots could not.

It's not like we don't have drones capable of autonomously flying half-way around the world already.

Errm, maybe this will somehow affect houseprices.

The Hudson river aircraft could NOT have returned to the runway it departed from and this HAS been demonstrated in a simulator. No computer programme exists or is in design that can cover occurrences such as that. Nobody is proposing to design one. Nobody is saying one is possible. Nobody is asking for one.

Trust me when I tell you its not uncommon for an Airbus A320 exactly like the Hudson river one to be flying along quite happily only for the on board computers to suddenly, erroneously, think that both engines have just failed. They immediately demand the pilots turn both of them off - when they are running perfectly. A pilot can hear the engines with his ears and sense their thrust through the seat of his pants. He ignores the computer warning screaming at him that both engines have failed and overides their instructions. This is not uncommon and I've had it happen to me in a previous life.

Lay people often mistake the ability of the autopilot to steer and land the aircraft for an ability to Pilot the aircraft. Very different. A computer cannot decide how much ice is on the wing, whether the gather storm is too close to the take off path or devise a diversion strategy taking into account what is happening to all the other aircraft and airports in the area.

There will never ever be a pilotless commercial airliner in this century. Not because of any technical difficulty in building an aircraft that can automatically take off, navigate and land itself (though NO airliner currently in production or in design can take-off itself..)

Move on. Pointless debate about something that isn't going to happen for reasons you haven't even thought of never mind misunderstood.

PS

ps Airlines are making profits again - usually a sign of the upturn after recession, that's vaguely back on topic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plane that ended up in the Hudson could have "blindly" returned to the airport, if the decision to do so was made immediately after the engines were damaged. This was demonstrated in a simulator. However, it was not possible to do that after a 30s delay required by humans to think about what to do. Furthermore, it was flown into the river by a computer as it was FBW. It is perfectly possible the pilot would have stalled it if it were a 737, but that is just speculation.

The bottom line is that the entire aviation industry is moving to FBW and the amount of automation will continue to increase. There is absolutely no reason why this should stop at some point short of the humans being replaced. Remember, not so long ago there used to be a navigator, a radio operator and a engineer on the flight deck in addition to the pilots. If they could be replaced by computers, there is no reason why the pilots could not.

It's not like we don't have drones capable of autonomously flying half-way around the world already.

Errm, maybe this will somehow affect houseprices.

nah...physics is not with you on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

ps Airlines are making profits again - usually a sign of the upturn after recession, that's vaguely back on topic..

or, more likely, serious restructuring of costs and debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hudson river aircraft could NOT have returned to the runway it departed from and this HAS been demonstrated in a simulator.

Only when flown by a human who needs time to decide where to go. Human crews were able to get it back when instructed to turn back immediately. Mine is second hand-information. Do you have something authoritative?

No computer programme exists or is in design that can cover occurrences such as that. Nobody is proposing to design one. Nobody is saying one is possible. Nobody is asking for one.

Complete nonsense. Drones almost certainly have some way of dealing with loss of power, and someone would certainly ask for that capability if they don't.

Trust me when I tell you its not uncommon for an Airbus A320 exactly like the Hudson river one to be flying along quite happily only for the on board computers to suddenly, erroneously, think that both engines have just failed. They immediately demand the pilots turn both of them off - when they are running perfectly. A pilot can hear the engines with his ears and sense their thrust through the seat of his pants. He ignores the computer warning screaming at him that both engines have failed and overides their instructions. This is not uncommon and I've had it happen to me in a previous life.

I am pretty sure that is unusual, but if it happens then it simply means the automation is not good enough yet, not that it never will be.

Lay people often mistake the ability of the autopilot to steer and land the aircraft for an ability to Pilot the aircraft. Very different. A computer cannot decide how much ice is on the wing, whether the gather storm is too close to the take off path or devise a diversion strategy taking into account what is happening to all the other aircraft and airports in the area.

It can certainly be given enough sensors to know everything the humans can see. Indeed, the only way humans can interpret the weather with any reliability is to use computerised equipment.

There will never ever be a pilotless commercial airliner in this century. Not because of any technical difficulty in building an aircraft that can automatically take off, navigate and land itself (though NO airliner currently in production or in design can take-off itself..)

You have no way whatsoever of knowing that. You sound about as convincing as someone would making predictions in 1910 for the rest of the 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 144 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.