Adding a ground-based copilot to private flying

9 thoughts on “Adding a ground-based copilot to private flying”

1. It’s an interesting idea. However, if a person at the end of a comms link could perform those functions, with the lack of vision and lack of “sense” of the subtleties of any given flight situation, then why couldn’t a computer? In other words, why not just use less computer power than there is in an iPhone to monitor the various operating parameters of the aeroplane? All of the inflight examples you cited could be done by a computer – deviation from a procedure, landing gear and flap deployment, critical speeds, checking weather at possible alternates and so on. I am sure all the sensory inputs and computing power already exist in a Garmin G1000 so they could develop it pretty easily, but I guess synthetic vision is sexier and will sell more.

   The preflight weather assessment could be automated too – is the average private pilot any better at “reading” the weather than can be done by a machine that gathers and interprets a bunch of TAFs?

2. Airline dispatcher/pilot interface is not as sophisticated as you have imagined. It is possible to go many sectors without communicating with dispatch. When communication does occur it is usually via ACARS. This is a time consuming process that does not facilitate fast communications.

   ACARS communications initiated from the dispatcher are usually notes on unexpected WX changes or station operations while pilot initiated communications are often after the fact updates on decisions already made or a request for a medlink phone patch.

   Voice contact is usually initiated via cell phone prior to pushback (though sometimes after i.e. the need to verbally communicate with maintenance control etc.) These are usually conversations relating to trying to find a legal solution to taking extra weight, changing routes for WX etc. (i.e. planning events.)

   What you envision will probably be a realistic first step toward automated/autonomous airline operations.

   In airline operations a dispatcher is responsible for multiple flights and, barring emergency operations, does not have the time to watch a flight as closely as you envision.

   To operate with the level of interaction that you propose would be much more expensive than the airline model. Not to mention the bandwidth required to provide the ground counterpart with real time information on commanded/actual control and switch positions.

   I agree with the above poster that an automated airborne system would be cheaper and more realistic.

   My airline has decommissioned its pilot/dispatcher radio link (a back up is available but ACARS is primary) and most communication is accomplished via keypad. This type of communication is far too slow for real-time decision making interfacing.

3. Jon: Not monitoring Atlanta Radio on COM2 like it says in the Ops Manual?

4. Our FOM requires us to monitor guard on radio #2.

   Atlanta Radio used to be our backup but was never monitored.

5. One question: could a software-only (or at least a no-dedicated hardware) solution provide much of the value in a more simple way? Aren’t there flight planning services already available which are prepared to do planning tasks like weather, routing, fuel planning, load planning and that sort of thing? (Basically functioning much like a part 121 dispatcher)
   If not, then there’s no reason there couldn’t be. A few quibbles: You’d have to actually listen to the guy. If JFK Jr. had bothered to ask, virtually anyone responsible would have told him not to go up the night he died.
   Who’d want to assume the kind of liability involved? I sure wouldn’t want to be the employer of the first guy on the other end of the line when a plane goes down with 3 doctors onboard. (or his insurer)
   Speaking of the guy on the other end of the line, the reason that flight instructors are happy to work for $20/hr is that they love flying. I doubt they’d be nearly as happy stuck in a trailer playing the world’s dullest video game for the same amount of money. (Remember the apparent wage difference between aircraft and RV mechanics?) Also, for some reason, instructors out here in California seem to be charging $40-55/hr

6. 1. Someone could write software to monitor flights, and the software would probably handle routine cases correctly. But would it correctly handle all unusual cases? Without full and correct confidence in the software’s ability in crises, the software would probably become merely another complication on which to squander the human pilot’s inadequate, distracted brainpower.

   2. So Californian flight instructors are too expensive? Apply the genius of our best and brightest business leaders! Why don’t we just outsource all our piloting needs to remote pilots in Pakistan? 🙂

7. When I wore a younger man’s clothes I instructed in California. In the 80s CFI rates were roughly 50% to 60% of the aircraft rental rate. The last time I looked a an aircraft rate sheet in CA. the cheapest thing on the menu was about $80-$85 wet. A new glass equipped airplane was $110 – $130/hr.

   CFI rates have always been artificially low to start (by virtue of the fact that it was always considered the entry level aviation job where you built time) and these rates seem about in line with the norm.

   That is unless you are one of those who believe that inflation is something that applies exclusively to costs and that wages should remain frozen at 1980 levels. (John McCain et all.)

8. BTW Phil, since you are active in the CFI game, what are your fixed and rotor wing instructor rates?

   I know you do some pro bono instructing but what does the school you work out of and what do they pay their CFIs?

9. Jon: The East Coast Aero Club Web site has current instructor rates charged to the student ($40-60 per hour, I think). The helicopter instructors are paid $25 per hour. I think fixed wing is about the same, maybe slightly higher for the senior instructors (more than 3000 hours?). So going off to fly regional jets involves only a slight pay cut 🙂

Comments are closed.