Single Pilot Potential
 

Not trying to fear monger or anything but Ive heard some people are afraid to go cargo due to the potential of they would be the first to go single pilot ops. Any merit to those fears!?

I went through all the threads and didn't find this topic anywhere.

rumors are true. The Cylons are taking over cargo aviation. Eventually they will come for passengers too.

Not nervous about single pilot ops. If you can go single pilot that means you can go no pilot, since the single pilot could become incapacitated. I really don’t foresee approval for 0 pilot airplanes anytime soon. Especially after CrowdStrike.

That's the crux of the issue.

You could ponder whether they might be OK with an incapacitated single pilot and a widebody full of boxes augering in. But the big jets tend to fly in and out of developed metro areas, so people on the ground would be at risk to some degree at least.

Once they achieve what they think is suitable full autonomy, they'll try it out with cargo ops first. But in my informed (computer and engineering professional) opinion that's a loooong ways off. Not in our working lifetimes. Once they actually develop the tech, they'll have to do a clean sheet aircraft design, most likely not economical to retro-fit to existing designs. And then it get it by the regulators.

They're going to have to do all that on a money-losing basis for the limited cargo market, just to get the operating experience necessary to get certified (and have public confidence) for pax ops.

It's one of the benefits of having a strong union. It's a hot button item that they actively fight against. Like others have said, I doubt we'll see it in our working lifetime, too much regulation to go through for a short-term roll out.

This has all happened before and it will happen again

In seriousness, reduced crew operations will come to cargo operations before it comes to passenger carriers.

That being said, consider how long it took the FAA to approve *ipads* to replace paper charts. Now consider that there are no currently made Part 25 aircraft that are certified for single pilot operations. Now think about network integrity with MELs, CAT II/III operations, pilot rest/fatigue, etc. Remember Germanwings 9525. Consider risk evaluation/mitigation and potential legal liability concerns. And finally, think about what will be the single biggest obstacle to national/international regulatory approval - politics.

I don't believe we'll see single pilot Part 25 widebody cargo jets operating for 121 carriers in my career, or even my lifetime; if we start seeing single pilot C17s going into warzones, perhaps I'll recalibrate but Uncle Sugar accepts more risk than Fortune 100 corporations do. I do believe an attempt to stretch when an IRO or double crew is required per regulation is more likely, but still don't see going below 2 required crewmembers in the next number of decades.

I think the idea that single pilot means no pilot is a psychological defense against a real threat. The two pilot redundancy can and probably will be replaced by one pilot plus AI redundancy. In addition, Reliable real time interconnectivity between aircraft and ground operations can expand CRM to an entire ground based team with direct ability to control any thing from flight path to individual systems. It won’t happen on our current fleet but I don’t think we’re even a single A/C generation removed from early implementation.

Airline operators stand to save significantly more money with reduction in pilot capacity than Ipads or most other recent cockpit tech innovations. Network reliability should increase eventually with fewer pilots as well. Things happen faster when motivated parties are the ones holding the cards. Situations such as Germanwings and MH371 have proven that rogue pilots can be successful in spite of the two man cockpit. Consider the implications of real time ground monitoring and the ability to override the pilot in such an event. Also consider a situation such as with AF447. A ground based team of pilots and specialists who is monitoring aircraft parameters could quickly assist and in extreme cases override a frozen pilot who has lost SA, effectively transplanting the most competent system matter experts into the cockpit on demand.

I'll just reiterate that I don't think we'll see single pilot Part 25 widebody jets operating for 121 cargo carriers in my career, or even my lifetime.

I suppose we'll see...

I cant get em to upload the winds correctly...def not worried bout single pilot in my lifetime

When people ask me about aircraft without pilots, I agree that it will take a long time before this is allowed.

We have a very expensive robot vacuum that needs constant attention. It can't operate more then a few hours without getting stuck or sending me countless annoying messages requiring attention. If a 10 pound machine operating in one dimension is this faulty, when do expect a 600,000 pound aircraft will be ready to be turned loose?

Well, our contract specifically states UPS flights will be preformed by UPS crew members. Until they can break that, non-crewed ops at UPS proper won’t become reality. I’d imagine most union shops would fall under the same protections. Otw, Military will be first (already started), followed by operators based in non union regions.

AFA single pilot ops, I don’t see any language in our contract preventing it though I only did a quick search.

Let's not forget that it's not just the airplanes that need to be capable, but the entire aviation infrastructure around the world will need to be upgraded. ATC will need to be able to effectively take some of the workload off of the single pilot or assume all of the workload if that single pilot is incapable for whatever reason. Traditional aircraft will need to be upgraded in order to participate with new "see and avoid" systems that will be necessary on the newly designed airplanes. Airlines pursuing this technology will undoubtedly need to hire more dispatchers to effectively monitor and provide support for the overloaded single pilots in the air. Communications, navigation, and datalink systems need to be 100% reliable and 100% secure. They will need to work perfectly in the face of hacking, jamming, 100 year solar storms, minimally trained third world operators, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. Airports themselves will need to be extensively modified before anything like autonomous operations can take place on them. All of this and more will take time and, more importantly, lots and lots of money. Is it likely to happen eventually? Probably. Is that someday in our generation's ot even the next generation's future? Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but given the hurdles and the costs, I don't think so. It'll be a long time before the cost of making single pilot/ autonomous ops feasible is lower than just continuing to pay pilots, distasteful as that is to airline management types.

The Famous Wien Air Alaska Case
 

Every airline pilot should watch the clip below, not it's not click bait and if you don't wish to click on it, go to the TubeOfU and type in "Wien Air Alaska"! It's the 1977 Strike video. It talks about how the "Union" fought againt losing the third man (FE) on the B737-200. The "Union" eventually lost and the B737-200 went to a 2 man cockpit. United, Western, Wien ALL went two men (and women). I say women for the obvious reason AND I believe Frontier had already gone two men/women as there was a famous woman that was hired by Frontier back then.

The gist is automation or crew workload. If the airlines can prove it, it will happen. I do believe drones or autonomous vehicles will deliver packages first then single pilot ops.

The second video is cool as you'll see later in the video what I'm talking about here.

https://youtu.be/LwSzlMRCbsA?feature=
shared


https://youtu.be/CNhNHd8w5TU?feature=shared

https://www.instagram.com/alpapilots/reel/C4OIa94tDyl/

Emily Howell was her name and guess where she wound UP!

A group of Texas A&M students hacked a drone. Ask the AF/ANG guys who deal with drones about their loss rate.

i think you’ll find a bulletproof datalink system does not and will not exist in our lifetime if ever. Someone will always find a way to hack it.

Currently, certain operations require 3 or more crew members. I think the first place we see reduced-crew operations (eMCO) will be on those flights. Not sure exactly what that might look like. Perhaps an authorization for a single pilot on the flight deck while the other sleeps. To be sure, there are hurdles in the way of doing this. I think the biggest one is insurance risk. Next would be regulatory approval, though Airbus is greasing the wheels in Europe.

This will be their ultimate downfall should any company decide to be the ‘test dummy’ and go forward with this. Management types. These people are so out of touch with reality with regard to the ENORMOUS technological, financial, regulatory, and safety hurdles, as well as the hurdle of public perception, for this to be remotely possible. But all they see is money.

The first airline that tries this WILL have an accident with one of these things, and when that happens the public will be absolutely terrified of getting on one of these things again. Then the ensuing fallout begins when the airline loses billions and eventually folds. If multiple airlines have these aircraft, then they will probably fold too. People are already scared enough to fly, and we think having robots fly them around is gonna change that? It’s just way, way, way too risky to try this, even if it’s still 100 years out.

I’ve said this many times before and some say I’m insane, but I believe this to be reality: it will never happen. Not with passengers. Maybe in freight, but even with freight I doubt it.

Some people will say ‘well we’ve been doing this with unmanned military aircraft for at least 2 decades now.’ And they’re right, we have. But the military and civilian environments are vastly different when it comes to acceptance of risk. There’s no comparison. It’s foolish to try this in the civilian realm. Like the poster above alluded to, until they design software that is 100% reliable, and doesn’t crash, doesn’t ’bug up,’ doesn’t do weird things every once in a while that nearly every device that has software eventually does, then it’s a no-go. These airplanes would go through a long period of design, flight testing, certification, and very likely redesign all over again because the original prototypes were flawed in many ways. The price tag of these airplanes would be huge in the end. I mean it’s taking Boeing 10-15 years to get the 777X certified for crying out loud, and that’s with 2 pilots required. And then look at all the problems they’ve had with the 737 max. Not to mention all the Boeing fuxx ups with the max along the way and being deceitful about it. And we’re gonna trust them or other manufacturers to build a completely new design that is without pilots?

Every time this subject gets revisited every few months to weeks on these boards, I just roll my eyes as it’s a pipe dream. And anyone who mentions it or puts out an article about it, is usually a ‘tech geek/guru’ and isn’t a pilot. Airline management would LOVE that, they salivate at the idea of getting rid of pilots. Thankfully airline management types aren’t engineers. How scary would that be? I could go on and on deeper as to why it’s not gonna happen, but I’ve got a deadhead flight (that has 2 pilots onboard) to catch.

I would presume single pilot ops would require some of the latest technology.

Good thing UPS aircraft are basically Jurassic jets when it comes to technology.

Now if a new airframe like the A350 shows up....I would put a stack of money on UPS wants assurances from Airbus they can do single pilot ops.

I'd be interested to hear theories on how this will work. When/if we go from a three or four person crew down to two, how does the rest work? We have definitions on what constitutes an on board rest facility currently. Do we all of a sudden decide that napping in the seat is a suitable alternative? I would assume the answer is no. If that's the case, then what happens when the one pilot in the seat needs a physiological (pee) break? Food? Coffee? Etc? Does that person then interrupt the other pilot's rest in order to attend to these needs? That seems like it could be very fatiguing, to the point of disrupting the operation. I'm not being the least bit ironic or dramatic here. If my inflight rest were being continuously interrupted and/or I felt I couldn't attend to physiological needs for fear of interrupting the other pilot, I would be quite inclined to call a UPS "safety timeout" upon landing. Hell, as a captain, I think I'd likely be inclined to divert the aircraft anytime I thought safety of flight was being jeopardized by the inability of my crew to get adequate rest enroute. One pilot in the seat is the same as zero pilots in the seat. It is very difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which at least two pilots were required on the flight deck at all times. That means the current crew compliments are the absolute minimum. Tech can and has replaced radio operators, navigators, and flight engineers. We're a long way off (imho) from technology replacing at least two human brains trapping one another's errors.

The ability to override a pilot from the ground. What could go wrong? I’m surprised we aren’t doing this already. I’d write more, but I have to go read this FOIB on GPS spoofing.

All solid points. I agree, it doesn’t work at all if you’ve got to wake the sleeping pilot for anything other than what you’d already wake that pilot for (eg: a non normal event requiring their attention). This would have to come with some way to allow the flight deck to be completely unattended for short periods of time.

Unthinkable today, but it’s something I wonder about with regard to the future.

Yabut.
https://youtu.be/6yaEYs1rKak?si=SFPIfBn7KlyNlkZw

Airbus I think is already experimenting, with the aid of an overseas airline with a cooperative regulator.

But that's a very long ways away from true single pilot, the solution to pilot incap is wake up the other guy. They're just hoping like hell they don't have an incap associated with a time-critical emergency like a rapid depress.

Of course the military has an indirect affect on civil aviation from the standpoint of training new pilots.

Fewer and fewer tails manned and otherwise require less in the way of pilots who can go on to fly for the airlines. CCA Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), USA - Airforce Technology (airforce-technology.com) is the way of the future. IMHO. 20 ish B-2s 75 ish B-52s for instance. Even the B-21 as a replacement will likely be less than 175 tails total but you get the idea. Not many compared to most civil airline fleets.

On another note the war in Ukraine has really been an eye opener in how wars of the future can go. The Army canceled the FARA largely based on lessons learned in that environment.

There's also been discussion on cancelling NGAD but that appears to be because of the cost and realistically political posturing I'm sure plays into that. We'll see.

Finally we have the SR-72 that would most likely be unmanned assuming it exists and in what form but the whole project is almost like UFO sightings so details are sparse for now.

Most of the world is already operating with what we call reduced crew. 11 hours block with a crew of 2 is common.
But then, they also have "controlled cockpit rest", where with certain procedures you can take a up-to 45 minute nap on the flight deck.

I could see reduced augmentation requirements on long haul flights before single pilot operations.

Since this is the UPS forum, I think it’s appropriate to point out that we operate under the rest rules of our CBA, not the less restrictive FARs. Unless we concede those rules (and the FARs are changed) in negotiations or a rival company implements a hugely economically advantageous no pilot or single pilot operation nothing will change. These threads come up to fear monger periodically and are interesting thought experiments, but the horse has already been turned to glue. There are some technological and significant political barriers to implementation of these flights of fancy. Good career plans are not based on flights of fancy.

Will they make automation produce fumes resembling flatulence? Case closed.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...eased-scrutiny

Article is from last year.

Everyone is so concerned about going from 2 pilots to 1 pilot on most flights. That is a ways off.

What I do think the next step will be is reduction of pilots required for long haul flying. You don’t need 4 pilots to fly a 12-16 hour flight. A simple change of the FAA rules could make those flights legal for 3 pilots. There are other examples where the I think you will see a reduction in pilots required for long haul flying.

Exactly on point. Movement will start with long haul from 4 to 3 pilots then 3 to 2 pilots well before just 1... Just a step by step reduction with their own set of problems.

*Said this for a decade now: Watch for the implementation of 4 to 3 and then open your eyes. Probably keep at least 1 for insurance blame purposes...

On int'l flights, anything over 7:45 requires 3 pilots and anything over 11:45 requires 4 per our contract.

13.S is still four pilots over 12 hours scheduled block, not 11:45.

The takeaway from this discussion is that both the FARs have to change and pilot groups have to accept a degradation of their contractual language, which is unlikely. Only a non-unionized airline or one where the pilot group has not already bargained for work rules (maybe pax airlines leaning on 117) that beat the FARs would be directly impacted by the FARs changing.

Why do you think you don't need four pilots for flights over 12? Current FARs are designed around the idea that no pilot should be in the seat over 8hrs. Last I checked, if you go over 12, you need four pilots to make that work. Is the FAA and/or congress pushing for this change anytime in the foreseeable future? If so, that's news to me. Is there new fatigue science that would support a reduction of crewmembers on long haul flights? Again, news to me if there is.

Is there technology in the works that may (key word) allow for a crew reduction at some point in the future? Surely. But that tech will require big changes in infrastructure and aircraft design, which will drive big costs for operators. It will need to undergo extensive testing. Most of the countries in the world will have to agree on implementation (Europe ain't flying a reduced crew into JFK without approval from US authorities). Pilot unions will have to buy off on the idea (good luck with that). Public concerns will need to be addressed. Finally, individual pilots will have to make an assessment each day, much like they already do under part 117, as to whether they are fit to operate in what will undoubtedly be a higher stress and workload environment.

In short, there are a LOT of hurdles for this idea to overcome. Not saying it can't or won't happen eventually, but judging by the speed at which major changes tend to happen in aviation, I wouldn't be too worried unless maybe I was in high school & considering the career.

So very true. Hey, maybe we'll go the other way like ATC controllers and get more required rest - bahaha...🤣 It's all about the clam$.

Its that wishful thinking coming through I guess

All that may be true, and it may even be certified in a few decades. But we're left with the notion that passengers are not going to put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of someone on the ground with no skin in the game.

And what if the ground facility security is breached? There could be wackos in the ground control station, just like there could in the air..the list goes on

There were navigators, engineers, Second Officers, First Officers - oh wait, we're predominately made up of First Officers. Doubtful for many many years or decades for total control "with no skin in the game" especially on the passenger side. Flesh is easy to blame and better for insurance companies is a guess. Just a reduction in force on long haul with the advent of "Otto pilot." Keep those 797 type ideas on the drawing board forever although Airbus is always testing the water as we all know.