Mover

So why not bring back the FE or NAV? If it takes 2 for CRM, why not 3 or 4?

Plenty of single pilot jets fly across the country every day without incident. Sorry, that's not a valid argument.

And for CRM issues, the company is just a call away. Same thing single seat fighters do every day when flying single ship across the country.

C130driver

You guys trust technology way too much. I'm sure everyone on here has been bit by George not doing his job. That trust leads to complacency. Ask the Korean "pilots" who crashed a fully functioning 777 into the SFO sea wall. You honestly think people today would get on a single pilot airplane when many of them are terrified of flying as is? Not in this century.

Mover

Technology? I'm not trusting technology, I'm saying that the level of workload in the cockpit today facilitates a single pilot environment right now. It is exponentially lower than the days of handflying and fix to fix navigation fifty years ago. Face it, we're systems monitors more than anything as the automation increases.

I think you're naive if you don't think it's possible for one person to fly these jets without incident. It's coming. And it will probably be the unfortunate solution to the pilot shortage.

I don't think people will care if it's only one pilot up front, as long as prices are low. They barely know there are two people up there now.

Larry in TN

Is that the same 737 that gives a "STEEP DESCENT AFTER XXXXX" message because it isn't smart enough to schedule a slower speed at that fix? Or that gives an "UNABLE NEXT ALTITUDE" at top of descent on the descent path that it, itself, calculated?

Monkeyfly

It seems that so many are developing a cult-like faith in technology. As if it had no limitations. As if it could overcome government bureaucracy! This type of thought applied to this industry isn't based in reality; it is even possibly dangerous.

The idea of single pilot only shows naïveté about the past 40 years of CRM. It's the major factor why we are so safe today.

Do you know how many times per day an airline pilot prevents an accident or incident?

The answer is THOUSANDS. Many times the pilot is saving the plane from a technology fail. Do we even have all that data to plug into a computer? No.

The no-pilot advocates are the ones least informed about what it takes to fly safely.

RiddleEagle18

Yes mover your right. 99.99% of the time 1 pilot would be great. When the **** hits the fan and your head is buried in the QRH the second pilot saves EVERYONE!

It's not worth the risk right now and won't be for a LONG time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CoefficientX

I hear what you are saying but completely disagree with your 99.99% figure.

Having two pilots in the cockpit has saved the day far more than just .01% of the time.

Adlerdriver

All you single pilot in the near future guys need to differentiate between what's possible via current or near future technology and what's practical, realistic and cost-effective.

Of course a modern aircraft COULD be flown by one pilot. I've got plenty of time flying single pilot. However, all current transport category aircraft used in -121 service are not certified for single pilot. You guys seem to gloss over the fact that there's nothing currently available to do what you're talking about. We're also talking about the regulatory agency that still requires two pilot crews to wear quick don O2 masks when one guy leaves the flight deck above FL250. Think there might be a little inertia there?

Re-designing a flight deck to allow complete control of all aircraft functions by a single pilot is possible but Boeing's not going to do it until all the hoops and wickets have been jumped through to change current regs (and airlines agree to buy them). As I already said, that re-design also has to include complete autonomy to allow for pilot incapacitation. That's everything we touch during a normal flight from gear to flaps, approach modes, etc. as well as ALL abnormal functions like fire handles, fuel control levers, cargo fire bottles, CSD disco, etc. Difficult? No, but big costs for what I see as very little return.

All that automation isn't going to be armed and sent off to the races in the event the only pilot on board doesn't respond after a set amount of time. There's going to be human interface on the ground to oversee the automation if we're talking about pax operations. Is all the expense of removing a pilot from the aircraft just to insert him into the equation on the ground really worth it?

Maybe an incapacitation program could activate on a cargo jet and it flies a pre-set profile to some cargo only emergency base. But, where is that exactly? How many of those do we have now? Who's gonna foot the bill for those? I doubt FedEx or UPS are real interested in building emergency landing bases throughout the US (or the rest of the world) when the easier, cheaper solution is just to keep hiring pilots.

Cargo carriers have NEVER been on the leading edge of aircraft development. Most fly designs that are decades old, never mind the actual age of many of their jets. FedEx is buying brand new 777s (first flown in the early 90s) and more than 100 new 767s (first flight 1981). The rest of their fleet are recycled 757s and DC-10s plus MD-11s and A300s averaging 20+ years old. The MDs and A300s are slated to fly well into the next decade (when you claim we'll be flying single pilot). FedEx is making money hand over fist with these jets, so where is their motivation to ask Boeing to completely redesign a flight deck and aircraft systems?

We haven't even addressed the ATC issue. Single pilot ops in the current ATC environment is inherently unsafe for 121 pax operations. Just because the military or part 91 operators might be willing to assume a higher level of risk doesn't mean the FAA is going to be okay extending that to commercial pax carriers. Even when I flew single seat fighters, I had wingmen backing me up on radio calls, emergency procedures and basic CRM stuff. Flying into the busiest sectors and airports of the US airspace system not to mention internationally using voice only communication requires two pilots. The crew coordination and CRM required simply to ensure ATC instructions are accurately received and implemented reflect just how much potential for error this one facet of the job contains. Until ATC commands are received via some other means than spoken English words (sometimes as a second language) there's no way we're going to single pilot ops. Even if you want to claim cargo ops could try it first, they're still flying in the same airspace and airports as the pax guys. That's not an acceptable option, IMO.

In addition to that, as long as ATC relies on their own intervention with aircraft flight paths to separate and sequence aircraft, a fully automated aircraft is impossible to integrate. There has to be a human to accept their commands and deviate the aircraft from it's programmed course and/or altitude. If that human is the only pilot and he's incapacitated, then full command has to be taken over by ATC, a ground based pilot or a fully automated on board source. So, we're no longer talking about a single pilot aircraft. Now it's a completely pilot-less aircraft. If it has to be that capable to handle the incapacitation scenario, then WHY would anyone attempt to design and implement a single-pilot aircraft as some kind of interim plan?

Differentiate between what might be possible on paper and what's realistic and most importantly cost effective in the next couple of decades. Maybe trying to answer a few of the questions that have been posed to you with realistic, viable options will convince you this isn't quite the easy transition you seem to think it is.

tomgoodman

Competing airlines that still have two pilots up front will make sure that customers know.
No airline CEO will spend a fortune and risk a marketing fiasco by "roboticizing" his fleet, unless all airlines are doing it.

flensr

If there is any initial step, my guess is that it would be a single pilot backed up by a dual-rated pilot/dispatcher, or maybe both a pilot and a dispatcher, on the ground. The pilot would have a certain number of flights to monitor, and would use high bandwidth comms only for takeoff, landing, and in the event of an emergency where the pilot flying needs assistance and a pilot monitoring. The comm backup would have to be a full-cockpit equivalent in order to monitor all switch positions and caution/warning annunciators, plus full video. The ground pilot monitoring would have the ability to make autopilot inputs, change switch positions, fly the plane remotely, and set up and fly an auto-land approach and landing, in the event that the pilot flying is incapacitated.

But... It'll only be in a backup role, not as PIC, and the ground pilot monitoring would probably end up assigned to multiple flights, hopping between them to actively shadow and monitor critical phases of flight.

I could see them try to do that... It's more technologically feasable than having every plane flying around without any pilots at all, and it directly addresses the phases of flight where 2 pilots are required or desired. Since each plane is shadowed only during certain flight phases like takeoff, approach/landing, and emergencies, they would need only a fraction of the comm bandwidth and ground pilots.

During non-critical phases of flight, dispatchers will continue to monitor as usual.

I'm hoping they don't but that's the scenario that I see as a possibility. It's based in part on how the military splits apart the launch/recovery and mission elements in RPA operations, and how the military would like mission pilots to control more than one RPA during mission operation and en-route cruise phases of flight.