I love YT crossover memes/comments lol

Cnbc way or production and reporting is so much better over the one guy in Wendover , absolutely no place for comparison

@@Zomeone I disagree. Maybe in style but not in content. CNBC lacks decent research and lack of broader view of the market.

wendover is 💩💩

@@mrkashka0 whaaat?

😂😂😂😂😂😂 ah man, can you imagine

Thanks for your feedback, I just discovered a new way of making profit through trading W,,,H,,,A,,,T,,,S,,,A,,,P,,,P +,,,,,1,,,,,6,,,,,6,,,,9,,,,2,,,,,9,,,9,,,,,4,,,,,,2,,,,,4,,,,,7

Third world pilots who couldn't handle a basic trimming issue.

@@quinnjim Incompetent American company who didn't even mention MCAS in their training manuals and checklists

@@cameosix7077 You don't need training in MCAS. Just have to be smart enough to turn off the stab trim when it's misbehaving. Pretty basic stuff for even an average 737 pilot.

@@quinnjim That's unbelievably prejudiced

@@myadder2 No, it isn’t. I’m saying that poor countries don’t have enough money for proper training. If they had been trained at my airline, they would have had the tools to fix this problem.

I could see a lot of passenger planes going down to one pilot and one remote operator/auto-pilot AI, but no a fully autonomous plane for this reason.

Airlines can't afford human pilots and wait staff anymore. As long as most cattle make it to destination, underwriters are still game.

You mean you’ll miss setting autopilot, not flying... lol

Automation for the sake of automation. What problem are you trying to solve?

Exactly. The second she said pilots in control centers I thought well if that is what the job was I would stop my ATPL course now. The passion and love for aviation isn’t understood by these normies

I can relate.

Depending on how far you are from realizing your dream, maybe you don't have to worry.

@@JPrince-rl2bf Think about it, automobiles were almost completely handmade. Once robotics was introduced, Noone assembled automobiles since then.

Drone pilots are cool too

@@aerohk Not after a Batchelors and three pilots titles they are...

Pretty certain on a modern jet their aren't much other sensors on board. What they do have is redundancy: so 2 or 3 copies of the same subsystem

*MCAS has entered the chat*

Pilots already rely heavily on computer sensors anyway, so not really an argument against autonomous planes.

Also, think of how much training it took for the plane to get you to the ground A private pilot with 10-15 hours can also get you on the ground and follow a glide path down. Do you want a private pilot with 10-15 hours to fly you around daily? Probably not.

@@nikobelic4251 that's why it's a private pilot and not commercial lol

@@smmmyummm8989 exactly!!!!

12:40

@@megaraph5551 no, Those certain weather requirements are low visibility and no wind. Not high winds or gusts which usually keep low visibility away. Plus auto landings in airliners is a very complex maneuver have a higher workload than a manual landing and require special pilot training

ILS, and Airbus autoland too. Haha

In case of a crash, insurance will come into play, and it will be the cost of doing business.

Will you even have money to get into flight as your job will be taken

That's exactly the thing, I'm not a certified commercial pilot but I have been flying commercial planes on my flight simulator for years now, and I do not trust this technology for a second. Just look at what happened with the 737 MAX, it was an automated safety feature that killed nearly 400 people.

Let's be honest, money is the deciding factor.

@Green Mamba Games Stats say that 88% of commercial aircraft accidents are human error, you know, like pilots ignoring what their instruments are telling them.

When they, quit teaching in tail draggers and removed spin training they made flying much safer (for Who)?

@@johnabuick wrong Stats say that 80% of crashes are human error, that includes Pilots, ATC, Maintenance, and Ground Crew And accident investigators are changing the way they analyze crashes because they recognized that the way they are investigating crashes puts too much emphasis on the pilots and not enough on the system which further reduces the percentage of crashes on pilot error. Plus, many crashes where pilot error is a FACTOR began when a component on the plane already failed which would have rendered the automation useless. Finally do you hear about pilots saving planes? No why? The news doesn’t care when there is no loss of life. If it’s not scary it doesn’t sell that’s why they hype up all the pilotless plane talk and ignore the many times Airbus and Boeing and other manufacturers have said “we do not plan on replacing pilots from our planes anytime soon” and the times they said “it’s an IF we can do it” and “we will have to make these planes Almost fly themselves” Fear sells and news networks make money by selling .

@@nikobelic4251 That's what I said, HUMAN ERROR.

@@johnabuick it’s 80% tho not 88%

Pilot jobs aren’t going anywhere at all, especially for people carrying operations. Cargo would do automation first in limited scale

@@jonasbaine3538 But the demand for pilots will decline overtime, making the career undesirable for most students due to automation.

@@neilnelson7603 automated cars are not even widespread yet. Anyone who avoids pilot school for this specific reason probably wouldn’t pass the check rides anyway....

Pilots are essentially a white collar job, except your desk just so happens to be a cockpit.

@@Stefan-jk5gx as someone training to be a pilot, I have to say that not many desk jobs carry the risk of public safety and avoiding injury/death daily. I know a lot of pilots that would consider their job blue collar where they work outside in all conditions loading unloading cargo and then flying the plane

True, I wouldn't be surprised if they only had 1 pilot at front, and another one on the ground for backup.

Agreed. I could only see self flying planes work if they can get taken over by people on the ground like RC planes

@@rayanaltowayan9558 That’s what I think will happen in the long run Single pilot airliners but for long haul there will be 2 pilots instead of 3 or 4 like there is today

There also been hundreds of plane crashes cuased due to pilot error so don't act like human pilots are infalible, because they definitely are. Automation is partly why air crash fatalities have declined in recent years.

@@Stefan-jk5gx yes but pilots usually don’t argue for less automation just that removing the human element completely will also cause an unsafe flight. Look at the most automated aircraft in the world today, drones, they have a crash rate far higher than manned airliners and part of it is because of lack of pilot situational awareness, connectivity issues, and mechanical problems amplified. Also automation in aviation really hasn’t advanced in about 4 decades in commercial airliners. The 2 man cockpit with the level of automation in the 767 and A320 is still present in today’s planes. They can fly and pilots can program an auto-land and this has been a feature since the L-1011 which had a cockpit crew of 3. What made flying so much safer isn’t so much the automation but simpler and better presentation of data to the pilots. Some sub systems have been made where they can be set to auto and they will more or less take care of themselves but when it comes to aircraft control, that level of automation has been present since the 1970s and honestly it’d a lot less automation than people think

Literally what pilots do on virtually every flight 😂😂😂 this is a complete joke I would hate to see this thing go mainstream and us losing our jobs because no pilot is gonna give up flying to sit in a damn office

@@fna1013 These technology clowns are automating for the sake of automating and the money associated with initial development. When you think about this and automating car driving, those are all passions, things people like to do. People spend so much time studying the type of car they want, the features and options, the color, how fast or how slow or how safe or how quiet it is. That should be a clue right there on how folks are attached To these passions. It’s gonna take more than a generation to give that up and in the meantime, life carries on as we know it

@@fna1013 I will never get to and this actually made me cry my dream job is gone I’m 16 and you got to be 18 or 21 I think to be a airliner I wish I was a little older but if I get rich I will open my own airline and have humans fly it not robots

I will never get to and this actually made me cry my dream job is gone I’m 16 and you got to be 18 or 21 I think to be a airliner I wish I was a little older but if I get rich I will open my own airline and have humans fly it not robots

@@avfan967 I will never get to and this actually made me cry my dream job is gone I’m 16 and you got to be 18 or 21 I think to be a airliner I wish I was a little older but if I get rich I will open my own airline and have humans fly it not robots

Tell your friend to ask the pilot how long until we get there and then when he says there is no pilot, scream at the the top of your lungs.

Imagine it that none of this actually happened. You are just watching a new VR video fresh off of p***hub.

@@abram730 ⁹the deep end and tomorrow is not being used in all o you I 9th tomorrow 9o is i tomorrow 9th you 8th is 8th up itinerary pokemon so if he does it won't work for us at the end we mmm 99 I'm 😱😱

@@abram730 I j up I p 8i8 p out I think I Kyi 9th o[uu87998 I 8 7th I⁷87 8th 8887sm Iya 9 FYI 8888 I o⁸8th of August

Imagining as as far as I will get.

or... make mistakes. Pilots are not infalable.

Trust me the moment you see the pilotless plane on the same flight route you need is 20€ cheaper, you'll buy it without even blinking.

@@bahenbihen , Trust me! I won’t!

@@JustCameronAndHisJeep , True but they can also make flight corrections. If the computer didn’t learn it you don’t want to be in the plane, because you might be dead in a crash. Nothing is better than an experienced pilot who’s motto is, “a good pilot is always learning “. By the way, that’s my motto

I trust well programmed machines than human errors so I welcome it.

They said 7 out of 10.

I thought that they were already fully automated, and the pilots were there just in case

@@JPrince-rl2bf for the most part of a flight they are

@@JPrince-rl2bf We are all fine with an automated plane with a pilot in the cockpit to monitor things. I can't say the same for a plane that's being monitored remotely by people who's lives are not on the line.

Sorry, you can't stop technological advancement

The pilots job is to land you into your assigned seat. Then the AI gets the rest. While disembarking it’s the AI saying buh bye buh bye now buh bye.

I like how pilots are desperate to find things that autopilot will perform poorly at. Fully autonomous flight will definitely have its technical challenges and problems, but computers are for sure much better at handling difficult weather conditions than humans since they are really just about responding quickly and correctly in a feedback loop at the highest rate possible.

They don’t care

we automate the mundane, then we can do what we truly like to do

And for all: traveling!

@@MarkWTK If we don't even have a job, where will we get income from?

@@FeelFree3 which is why I believe Universal Basic Income is an eventuality, unless the government prefer to help people to go back to uni/learn courses to pick up new transferable skills, i.e. coding.

@@MarkWTK I'm a pilot. I don't find flying mundane. What would I do?

really? two words for you: cheaper airfares ... on a budget and wanna fly for Vacation and you got the choice between $300 or $29.95? must people will choose cheaper

@@abyteuser6297 The savings overall aren't big for a flight because fuel, not pilots, make up the biggest share of the costs. You may save $20 a flight but if oil prices rises by a dollar a barrel all those savings are gone. Look at container ships, they're even easier to automate yet we don't have any unmanned cargo ships. Even with zero regulation from flags of convenience states like Panama and Sierra Leone the shipping lines still carry crew. Why? Because there's someone responsible on-site to troubleshoot if something goes wrong.

@@Avantime Very true, but they could just drop prices to give people an incentive to fly without human pilots to start... Funny about container ships and autopilot systems... they're coming www.wired.com/story/mayflower-autonomous-ships/

@@abyteuser6297 This stuff is like Ryanair talking about removing toilets or have "standing seats", great as a publicity stunt but ultimately nothing more, because it's simply impractical in real life. These autonomous flying startups need the media to talk about them to create buzz, but like flying taxis they're just too far off into the future, if it happens beyond small aircraft at all. No one cares if a small, unmanned cargo plane crashes in the Alaskan wilderness, but bring passengers in (and hundreds of them) over densely populated cities and it becomes a completely different story. The passenger airlines and regulators need someone "in charge" of the aircraft and capable of steering it, and having a pilot in an aircraft makes operation far more flexible (e.g. pilots can happily take-off without a working autothrottle, but this can't). Pilots can solve day-to-day problems as well as paperwork, they can troubleshoot faults on-site, navigate around bad weather as they experience it in the aircraft, and manually take control if necessary. Finally as we've seen with the Colonial Pipeline hack, a cyber attack is a very real possibility. Imagine if the remote pilot stations were breached by a ransomware attack. Even if there's no risk of aircraft turning into cruise missiles there would still be chaos in the sky, with many running on minimum fuel reserves.

@Green Mamba Games This is a bit off-topic, but no one cares anymore because the US military pioneered the use of combat drones. Now people are talking about kamikaze drones which can loiter in the air for hours, looking for a target to smash themselves into.

I don’t think it’s a drone

Drones are flown by people on the ground

It’s a drone with extra steps I mean if they really wanted to they could take a Global Hawk and add seats inside of it.... Except it crashed 4 times due to a computer failure or due to lost connectivity

That’s why this will be for small cargo planes and small aircraft probably with airframe parachutes. Not for airliners

@@nikobelic4251 But its stated that the eventual goal is for it to be implemented in airliners

@@fdfischer yes, automated takeoff and landings Not removing the pilots. Airliners will need a PIC aboard, someone who knows the regulations, someone who knows what’s going on, someone who knows an emergency is happening and that it’s being resolved correctly and who can tell the ground what’s going on and how to prepare. Neither Airbus or Boeing are planning to completely remove pilots, they have said it already.

@@nikobelic4251 You know computers can do all of that right? They can be programmed to act according to the regulations, they know what's going on much sooner than pilots do since pilots are notified by the computers that detect those failures, and computers are much better at calculating straight forward, by-the-book solutions quickly.

@@baab4229 what if the answer ISN’T by the book? Also, computers today still can’t make decisions for the flight nor explain those decisions to passengers, flight, attendants, and people on the ground in order to prepare. Finally, detecting a problem isn’t the same as finding a solution to it Also what if there is a problem detected but no actual problem? False alarms happen and they don’t always require a worst case scenario response to what the alarm is detecting

Wel you do but I doesn't mater wen

Its 737 max not 787max the 787 is new and hasnt had a fatal crash

Mmm yes 787 max

@@Lee247Jamaica The 737MAX is newer than the 787

@@9999AWC did i say the 787 was older

Yeah but that’s impractical and expensive But I mean. Automation could make it where airplanes fly so similarly where a pilot could be type rated on multiple types and that would help reduce costs a lot

As long as you train for that in the simulations then it shouldn't be a huge problem.

@@sensorsforlife1235 ? I was agreeing with you. I was saying that as long as your training data for the ML models captures enough variance in flying then it should be able to adapt to turbulence. I work a lot with edge ML systems.

it already does automated in bad weather . watch full video .

@@sensorsforlife1235 agreed

@@Q_QQ_Q bad weather and poor visibility is not the same thing. Most autopilots today cant handle even half of the cross wind or turbulence that a human pilot can. Look up airbus or boeing autopilot limitations and you’ll see…

You are fundamentally wrong. The number of spatial dimensions is not relevant here. Cars drive in extremely chaotic environments, full of unpredictable and chaotic actors such as pedestrians, children, pets, bicycles, cars doing weird or illegal things etc. Additionally, road markings, traffic rules and standards vary significantly not only from country to country but from city to city, from street to street. Autonomous cars must be designed from the ground up to be able to handle these unpredictable situations much more robustly. On the other hand, the aviation industry is extremely well regulated and standardized. All aircraft send signals on their location and altitude, so there is no need to see, detect and predict their paths. There are no unpredictable actors such as pedestrians or vulnerable traffic members that do whatever they want just to get to their destination. Runways, taxiways and even gates are not just standardized nationally but also internationally. In short, everything in the aviation industry is streamlined, straight forward, regulated and presents far fewer degrees of freedom. Also lol at you saying a guy who has worked on flight automation at SpaceX and driving automation at Tesla doesn't know about flight or automation.

@@baab4229 Regulate and Standardize does not equal no variation. All our roads and signs and traffic lights are all Standardizr and regulated, just like they do in aviation. And there are plenty of variation. (And I work in the aviation industry so I know). The environment factor operating in 3 dimensional space are much more challenging then operating on a road on a flat plane. Furthermore, you need to factor in the reliability and rate of accident. In a car, if there are any scenerio that something is not "right", all the system need to do is the turn on the emergency signal and slow the car to a stop or stop on the side of the road. On an airplane, you do not have that luxury, you must continue to fly until you can land at the nearest airport, which could be up to 270 minutes away on polar route or over the Pacific. Also failure that results in the loss of the plane is simply not an acceptable outcome (Space X engineers might be able to automate their rockets and fly to the space station, but their failure analysis allows for at most 1 in 100,000 failure case, in many case even lower at 1 in 10,000. In aviation, that number is simply not aceptable. For aviation, you are looking at a factor of at least 1:10,000,000, even then, this is a very low target (from a manufacturer standpoint). So to build a fully automated system to cover that level of safety is hard. Even Elon Musk admitted that the time frame of when automated driving can be launch will depends on the number of death and accident rate we (consumer) and regulator can accept, if we can accept the system have similar or better death and accident rate then our current human manual driving solutions, then it is quite different then building a system that are essentially 100% failure proof. And aviation is many many times safer then driving, which will makes any automated system that much more challenging. I can think of hundreds of scenerio that an automation system will leads to a loss of life and aircraft and there is nothing the automated system can do to resolve it. Finally, you can argue there are padestrian or other vehicle which add to the complexity, however those problems are mostly solve and most of them are already be track and detected using current technology. Anyway, at the end of the day, it comes down to acceptable risk factor (no different then what Elon said about automated driving)... However acceptable risk in aviation will be many many times higher then autonomous driving, as aviation sector is already very very safe, so which is why it is much harder to achieve.

@@baab4229 Just to further add to your reply. You mention All aircraft send signal on their location and altitude, so there is no need to see, detect and predict their path... How wrong... It is extremely expensive to continuously send those data... And not all aircraft or all airline sent those data to ground stations... Those airlines that do (generally those operating internationlly on remote location) only send such information on fix interval (in terms of minutes). Also aircraft has much more challenging environmental factor that often has aircraft deviation from their intented flight path, often such deviation can be many many nautical miles away from their filed flight path. And these deviation are no fix either, often these deviation need to be made based on judgement (aircraft radar can't see every pieces of weather and the human eye and a pilot judgement is often used to find the path of least resistance when trying to fly through a wall of thunderstorm that are 200nm wide that you can't possible fly around it... Factor these challenges with terrain consideration, traffic seperation, you got a heck of a lot of consideration... It is often easy to say, we can automate everything... Sure, a computer can fly an airplane, they already do... Pilot uses autopilot all the time... However what the automation can not do are all these dynamic cases with weather and terrain and irregular ops (system failure, loss of comms, etc etc) those are the challenges... These challenges are much much more difficult then those face by a car, like the predestrian or cyclist who might suddently pop in front of a car... Because a car only need to slam on the brake and stop... An airplane does not have the luxury to slam on the brake and stop in mid-air, it must continue to fly... While working all of these edge cases our dynamically, this is the challenge... I do wish this start up a good luck on working on this. But it is definitely not as simple as they claim it is to be.

@@wowpeter Airplanes already heavy rely on ATC and TCAS. Pilots do not have enough field of view to detect planes and act quickly enough which is why an automated system (TCAS) was designed. Now add bad visibility to this mix and you get a poorly designed system. Cars do not have ADS-B and they certainly don't have TCAS. Pilots can only avoid collisions in some few cases where their speed and the visibility conditions are good enough for human vision and reaction time to work properly. Go one step outside of that narrow envelope and relying on pilots to avoid traffic and storms becomes just silly. Any unidentified object that was not detected by radar or ADS-B would be detected by a synthetic vision camera. We already have this technology and it is significantly simpler to make one for planes since the number of things you have to recognize is much lower compared to cars. Basically: if you see something that isn't a cloud go around it. As opposed to: if you see a pedestrian try to guess where he's going but also consider that he might turn around since the pedestrian crossing goes perpendicular to their motion but also the street goes parallel and there are cars waiting on the other sides, so recognize where they are pointing and therefore where they are more likely to go once the pedestrian has crossed but also remember that there might be another car behind that car and another pedestrian around the corner ....etc... This is just messy. This is oversimplified, but you see the difference right? And btw, you say that not all aircraft have ADS-B but the US is planning on requiring this for all planes soon. It is only a matter of time until all aircraft are connected to each other. This is not the case for cars. When you're airborne you only have to account for aircraft. When you're driving on the road you have to account for other cars, pedestrians, pets, bicycles etc. You can't connect all these different traffic members. Computers can and do handle dynamic cases, including traffic and weather. In fact, because computers operate on much higher frequencies and higher-dimensional spaces, it is much easier for them to plan for traffic and weather changes. I mean computers are literally used to dynamically steer rockets based on rapidly changing conditions (winds, fuel, aerodynamic and mechanical forces etc.) because humans are just not capable of doing it. System failures are nowadays recognized by computers, not pilots. And given enough computational redundancy, an AI could easily handle an emergency situation. You have to realize that all pilots do in emergency cases is use lookup tables to construct the most optimal path and minimizes casualties. Sometimes they have these lookup tables memorized, sometimes they literally look it up. And at times when they don't have lookup tables memorized or available, they end up crashing the plane and then the narrative goes "they weren't trained to handle that situation." Now imagine how many lookup tables a computer can memorize and how quickly it will execute an emergency procedure. Give me any type of system failure that a human can handle, I'll explain to you how a computer can do it better. And I didn't read your previous reply cause it was too long sorry. Sum it up.

@@baab4229 clearly you don't know how TCAS and ADS-B work... TCAS is reactive, you certainly do not want TCAS to be trigger on every flight. In fact in my 16 years of flying, I have had maybe 2 or 3 TCAS event... ADS-B does not provide the full pictures of the airspace....it was never intended to... I wish it does... But it provide you with a view of the closest 15-20 aircraft at most....and have you been to a busy airspace like London or New York? The current system will not be able to identify all traffic in a busy airspace. ADS-B was never design to be used as manuover tools, if you want a system that are design to communicate between aircraft and perform self seperation, you will need something much more sophisticated then ADS-B. Clearly you have not flew an airplane, if you think all pilots do in emergency cases is use lookup tables to construct the most optimal path and minimize casualties. If this is your mentality of flying, good luck to you, I will make sure I will not be on a plane with you. As for scenerio, there are plenty to list, anything from unrelaible air data, lost of IRS and GPS, lost of the automation system itself, usually when things goes south, mutliple things happen at the same time. Single failure rarely bring down airplanes. Multiple failures will, and the fact of the matter is that we can never map out every possible failure scenerio for the computer to automate everything, which is why a human will always be there. On a system like a self driving car, if you have any scenerio where you did not map out the solutions beforehand, you can just stop the car. In an airplane, you can't just stop the plane, you don't have that luxury. Which is also why it will be that much harder.

Thanks for your feedback, I just discovered a new way of making profit through trading W,,,H,,,A,,,T,,,S,,,A,,,P,,,P +,,,,,1,,,,,6,,,,,6,,,,9,,,,2,,,,,9,,,9,,,,,4,,,,,,2,,,,,4,,,,,7

MCAS wasn't really meant to automate flying, since it was never really supposed to activate at all, barring extreme situations.

depends. If you have a job that can or cannot be done by AI.......

@@garrisonkoby3448 if AI can make all the decisions pilots can and fly planes it can take any job tbh They are working on Autonomous surgery and AI designed and 3D printed a car as well My belief is AI will complement these jobs not replace them But if you believe one job can be replaced AI has shown it can potentially replace all of them

@@nikobelic4251 yes, you are right. And true AI is basically "God" compared to humans. But there are jobs, such as repair men, and trade jobs that are long ways off from being replaced with robots / AI.

@@nikobelic4251 yes, you are right. And true AI is basically "God" compared to humans. But there are jobs, such as repair men, and trade jobs that are long ways off from being replaced with robots / AI.

@@garrisonkoby3448 I am sure they could create a repair robot relatively easily tbh but again I don’t think pilot jobs, surgeon, engineering jobs are going to disappear with AI They will change though but not disappear

It costs less, works more, that's why

@@DheerajBhaskar but I mean like the are automizing every industry and we’re all going to be out of jobs

Lol 😂

As a pilot. I totally agree if my Aircraft is going down I want to go down with it

@@isaaccool3183 why? if there's nothing more you can do to save people's lives but you can save your own, wouldn't you take that chance?

@@kushal4956 you fight to the bitter end. That is drilled into you

imagine being a flight controller and getting called by a text to speech engine lmao

I've seen the way humans drive. I think I might be safer if they stayed in the back seat.

@@MatthewStinar nah, electroboom made a video on that, it's not very reliable

@@SirDella Neither are the humans.

@@MatthewStinar true

You are greeted at the entrance? LOL Goodness, I haven’t seen that in a lot of years

I agree. Modern Cyber security is not effective enough to protect robots in the sky with thousands of souls on board from cyber threats. Think of a hostage situation where a hijacker can control 100 hundreds of planes with a click of their mouse. Yikes!

The datalink is an emergency feature. Planes will not be controllable from outside in normal circumstances.

Every time the technical world designs a supposed secure and non-penetrable system, someone derives away to hack it. That’s humans hacking technology, can you imagine when AI becomes the culprit and it’s designed to hack into other AI systems???

@Green Mamba Games Most likely still safer than a helicopter.

@@iceman18211 I'd take a helo with a pilot over an automated plane any day.

No... no they aren’t... they have automation but aren’t autonomous

What is terrifying is executive decision making in current airline & commercial manufacturing when financial pressures on put on a business and then the culture that comes from it…

It's all so tiresome...

Obsolete, no At least not on airliners Someone will still manage the flight and inform passengers on large airliners.

@@nikobelic4251 obsolete is a relative term. The real question is WHEN? 20 or 100 years from now. Either way I’d rather focus on how I can remain relevant in spite of the pending disruption. NO ONE can stop an idea whose time has come. Cheers!

@@thedreamville cheers to that man. We are humans we adapt that’s why we have been so successful up to now.

@@nikobelic4251 Flight managers will be on the ground or also be automated. And passengers will most likely be informed by flight attendants.

@@baab4229 flight attendants don’t have all the knowledge about flight to inform passengers as well as the pilots or to make the decisions needed If you have to train flight attendants to do all that stuff you would just be training multiple pilots per plane.

So, who designs AI?

drivers

I hope you're joking.

This is the complete opposite of a bright future

I wouldn't say never. It will definitely need to proof itself.

Pilots are human so they have flaws too. Many of aircraft mishaps are result of human factors. It's best to complement each other.

@@ntphan what many don't realize is if you automate to much and the pilots basically have to do almost nothing that we'll get into an other problem which is that when a pilot suddenly take over they won't have had enough regular training or situational awareness to know what to do. This is the same problem with Tesla self-driving right now.

I will never get to and this actually made me cry my dream job is gone I’m 16 and you got to be 18 or 21 I think to be a airliner I wish I was a little older but if I get rich I will open my own airline and have humans fly it not robots

@@autohmae I will never get to and this actually made me cry my dream job is gone I’m 16 and you got to be 18 or 21 I think to be a airliner I wish I was a little older but if I get rich I will open my own airline and have humans fly it not robots

I'm right there with you. Currently, over 100k people are commercial pilots. So... those 100k will have to work in some office building instead? Ridiculous. Just look at the 737 MAX - an *automated* safety feature that killed nearly 400 people. Unbelievable. Believe me though, this won't be happening any time soon.

Not all short flights will be automated and airliners will be simpler to fly and therefor it will be easier to train pilots. Being a pilot will change a lot less (to no) stick and rudder but decision making will be the skill needed

Nah we were like “not this crap again” *eyer roll*

@hittih P well, yes it has been And it’s been reported like pilotless planes is going to put all pilots out of a job and that they are “right around the corner” before.

@hittih P China had been flying a cargo drone for about 5 years Aurora flight sciences created a simplified control platform for Helicopters which allows them to be flown from the ground with an IPad They also created an optionally manned Twin engine 4 seater aircraft in 2015. Some other dude converted a light aircraft into a drone and in Europe 2-3 years ago they landed an airplane using vision based algorithms. I mean, we get it, we can make drones with multiple means we have been making them for decades and surprise surprise, pilots are still here because 1 An airliner isn’t a light and simp,aircraft 2 Pilots provide redundancy to a system and that’s always been important especially when carrying passengers. Finally, both Airbus and Boeing have stated multiple times they do not foresee a future without someone on the cockpit. They can see single pilot airliners but with 0 no. Boeing has said it less directly but Airbus has straight up said it multiple times.

If there’s any airline job they should automate, I think it would be the ticket counter. Then the flight attendant, I’m sure we can get a computerized cart to go down the aisle and hand out drinks and at the same time points to the exit whenever the situation exists. The actual pilot will be the last job I want to automate

Rob Schneider derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp, da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Rob Schneider is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

I don't think it will be legal to not include controls on the plane. So you'd be there in case the connection is lost with the ground or some other problems. At least you absulotely should be

yep