The everything is what would have to go. If you understand Cleary what those responsibilities are (as you do), you won’t disagree that focusing on flight safety, in flight, would raise flight awareness where it matters the most: anticipate, avoid, resolve.
We have now the possibility to access graduated employee at all ranks in flight. In the 70’s, a fresh pilots would mostly be the most graduated/experimented of its crew. This is where the emphasis on Capitainzing the flight comes from: the.most statically able person to take decisions. Today, this is not true. You can have a flight attendant with a master of history or psychology when the pilot in charge have interrupted his/her cursus to pursue a flight formation. In short, there is a resource to multi-task the flight and share flight responsibilities.

A pilot devoid of the erratic burden of handling the passengers (which per def is highly variable) could focus on the new challenge of tomorrow: for example high tempo of flight, less predictive weather (global warming), more complex FCS failures (see the stuntman thread).

The good captain in his white uniform saluting passenger boarding the plane is something of the past. It’s a colorful folklore that sadly have to be phased out.

I’ve seen this many times before, but may as well ask now. Why is the AMRAAM on the wingtips and the Sidewinder under-wing? Reducing the load as you move away from the fuselage should lower the bending moment on the wing and improve fatigue life. What gives?

Going for the merge after a few shot at BVR, the least that you want is roll inertia. At that point both Amraam would have been depleted, leaving the sidewinders in the outboard pylons.

Firing restriction under high load might also be eased with the missile fired from a position under the wing less subjected to high deflection (flexion, easing your engagement geo.

Hence:
– less roll inertia
– opened firing envelope
– less restriction while maneouvring

I use FSX Its great fun flying the B747 though as you say cannot simulate any where near the real thing even a real commercial sim cannot either but its pretty close. In rare instances where the auto pilot hands the aircraft back to the pilot it would need a minimum of two people to deal with the situation.

Real and Sim in the same sentence is already a false implicit assertion.

Regarding the problem of having only one single pilot in the cockpit, it is apparent to me that people are putting together the wrong equation trying to figure a result: Flight safety and flight duties.

I and other have tried earlier to propose a solution in the Stuntman thread, but this still stands as an open question. With the maturation of flight systems capable to handle many or all the phases of flight, is it still relevant to double task the onboard pilots with flight management and flight safety?

I do think it’s not.

You can read refer to the stuntman man thread to see more.

As a sad example, we can see here that this captain had to be task focused on flight management at the depends of the flight safety (his own safety btw). If the the priority were better set and his authority relevant, he could have dismissed himself from flying this day and a replacement tasked among a poll of available pilots (it is easier to have such poll with single seater aircraft and not-overloaded pilots with peripheral priorities (the specific phases of flight being transparent for their duty – safety being nearly identical from one flight to another).

It is evident to me (but this has to be demonstrated) that refocusing onboard pilots on managing safety and re-tasking the management of flight to computer systems and ground support teams will provide a net increase both in cost-efficiency and safety for the passengers. It is hence the way to go.

As a side effects, this will empower international organizations dealing with safety and flight regulations agencies by facilitating the monitoring of appropriate actions (ground based and software regulated). At a time when the push of deregulation is exponential or hacking terrorism that might affect heavily the airlines economy, centered regulation and wide access survey will be of huge benefits to prevent, refrain or identify singularities leading to potential disasters.

Could they just be using those machines for now. And when they are done in Syria, Leave them for Assad?

Yes, this is the second hypothesis. Do you remember the soviet/German pact in the early 30’s and the shadowy early Luftwaffe?

This could explain the prudent expenses of material with an out of country only area support (RuN).

Does ISIS/Daesh have any radar?

Interesting that they launched with the hook doors open.

Well spotted.
Perhaps this to prevent the consequences of a tail strike at launch (plane would have to be ditched/abandoned). We will see if it is SOP soon.

@Teer:
The aerostat surveillance platform is very controversial in the US. Last report shows a low reliability and so far an inaptitude to provide a 24hr coverage as claimed (by far). This, in Washington, a low ground coastal city.

What about the experience of the Indian armed force? Can you direct us toward a link that you know could be interesting to read in regard of the above. I am particularly skeptical regarding the mountainous terrain where I guess those aerostat would be deployed. But I might be wrong from tip to toes.

Maybe we would need also a thread dedicated to those platforms.

Kelly could certainly have claim that proudly… An F104 certainly turn better at Supersonic speed than a Mig17. Idem at High alt.

Planes are like burgers, there is always one for your own taste.