Dutch Airline Pilots Union Protest on Plans to Operate Single Pilot Flights
nltimes.nl
nltimes.nl
#1, I think it's easier to go from 2 pilots -> 0 pilots. If your automation and remote control are good enough and robust enough to survive without a pilot, they are good enough to fly without a pilot.
#2, If you actually want to reduce crewing in a way which makes sense with less compromise on safety, allow long-haul flights to drop to a single pilot in the cabin during cruise phase. Long haul flights might fly with 4 or 6 pilots today, enabling to always have 2 pilots in the cockpit. It seems reasonable to me to reduce this number and allow only one pilot during cruise, where a second (or more likely more) pilot can join in the cabin within a minute or two in the event of any issue.
The a380 is certified to 853 people aboard, just pay the fucking skills. Skilled people are why an economy exists, paying people is the point.
Let's even start with cargo only flights.
I do think the learning would be valuable because I know eventually we will develop pilotless planes, just not sure it will happen in my lifetime.
Until the 1980s, flight crews had three critical roles: pilot, first officer and flight engineer [2]. Technology improved, namely sensors and onboard computing, and the flighe engineer became redundant.
I don't have a strong view on making redudant the FO. But we've eliminated roles before without compromising safety. For ETOPS-equivalent flights in good weather, it strikes me as fine--if the pilot is incapacitated the plane should be able to land itself at the nearest airport.
Under some circumstances its already happening, in a way...."EASA is among many regulators that, under very specific guidelines, allow one pilot to take a nap in their seat while the other stays at the controls."
For what it's worth, it's also the norm in general aviation.
There is also a huge difference between going from 4->3 or 3->2 and 2->1. You're loosing any redundancy!
So many of the near disaster scenarios I watch/read about (I'm an avid watcher of both Mayday and Admiral Cloudberg) are only near disasters because of having two pilots (or sometimes more) in the cockpit at the time of the incident. I recall one the other day where the plane was only saved because they happened to have four qualified pilots in the cockpit that day. The captain, the FO, someone doing a checkride on the captain and someone doing an evaluation on the pilot doing the checkride. Unusual situation but it happens.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are people here optimizing for the average workload and the average workload deviates by orders of magnitude from the workload during emergencies.
In normal situations the pilots are fairly idle most of the flight (talking about long haul here, not regionals with 10 movements per day) and probably use 10% of their training. When it matters, that other 90% of their training is absolutely critical to saving lives.
Similar situation with flight attendants. 99% of flights they are (exceptional) waiters and waitresses, but, 1% of the time they have to draw upon little-to-never-used experience which is the difference between life and death.
The proposal on the table is not to have only one pilot on the flight. It's to have only one on duty during cruise phase only while the other one rests. This way they can skip the full double crew requirement during long haul.
So during takeoff and landing the cockpit will still be fully staffed. And in an emergency the resting pilot can be called. Toilet breaks would be covered by the other pilot too. So the cockpit is never empty. Doesn't sound like such a bad idea imo. During cruise the plane is normally flying itself from waypoint to waypoint anyway. Though I wonder how much quality of rest you can get in such a scenario (having to be woken up for every toilet break etc)
There will also be a remote hands support center, I'm less confident about that idea but as long as it's extra and not counted on it might be a good option.
16hr long haul and everytime the other guy needs to piss you get woken up. Then you both have to fly the approach completely cooked from the shit rest. And thats without wx or diversions. Clearly not thought out.
I wonder though if there were similar complaints when the flight engineers were phased out, which obviously worked out fine (things are actually a lot safer back then).
For example they could do things like pee tubes (With M/F suitable private receptacles) which some private jets have in the cockpit. So it's not necessary to wake up the other pilot all the time. But yeah a long bumpy flight would be exhausting for both.
You jest but Ryan Air's been pushing for that for some time[1].
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jul/01/stand-up-for-r...
Empirically, yes, a lot of people will choose a €10 cheaper flight, particularly in Europe, where that might be 50% off.
Putting a cabin crewmember alone in the cockpit seems like a terrible bet that no emergency (or even abnormal) will occur over the thousands of such occurrences.
Next will be Traffic Controllers - "Airbus Unmanned Traffic Management" - https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/autonomous-connected/ai...
Autopilot becomes the first officer. When the pilot goes to the lavatory, they hand control to the autopilot. (Same in case of incapacitation.)
In practice, I assume the first flights to test this will be on short routes. The pilot needing to go to the bathroom would constitute an emergency.
Though how tf would they land?
Most planes—including many GA planes—can land themselves.
It's not exactly graceful though. It'll just announce its intentions on the emergency channel and picks the nearest runway it wants. You'd better have a really good reason for it. It's still better than activating the CAPS parachute though which will usually total the airframe and can cause injuries.
The technology is even to the point where drones can reliably land on aircraft carriers. US Navy fighter pilots now have software assistance for landing on carriers (Magic Carpet/Precision Landing Mode). What was once one of the most dangerous feats in aviation is now a routine and reliably safe operation. https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/Navys-latest-flight-control...
"Autonomous flight" - https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/autonomous-connected/au...
Empirically speaking, this is the case. Many crashes would have been avoided had autopilot flown. This is as true in air transport as general aviation.
In other-than-normal conditions the computer is almost always wrong.
These protections are increasingly lost as you move into alternate laws 1 and 2. And no protections whatsoever in direct law.
In most emergencies issues pile up so quickly that these modes tend to activate more often than not (and confusion about which mode is active has led to several fatal crashes)