The End Of Single Crew Commercial Flights ?

[LateFinals]

PPL and Frequent SLF here. I fly to the Channel islands in the UK a lot both myself and with Aurigny as SLF on the trilanders.

There is much gossip on the islands at the moment that next year the CAA may reccomend that 2 pilots are needed for commercial flights in the UK. This would have huge implications for small airlines like Aurigny and passenger fares etc.

Anyone know whether these rumours are true ? Is there any good evidence that having 2 pilots is actually safer than one assuming good training and strict adherence to SOP's ?


Happy New Year !

LateFinals

[TopBunk]

LF

Do you mean recommend or require/mandate.

There is a big difference as the latter will have the effect you mention whereas the former implies some option and may see Aurigny given a grandfather rights exemption to continue single crew operations as a consequence of their operational record.

I hasten to add that I have no knowledge of the proposed legislation and am just interpreting your message.

[ChristiaanJ]

Having been closely involved (mid '70s) in getting the Agusta-Bell 212 systems certified for single-pilot IFR by the (British) CAA, I'll be following this thread with interest.

[WindSheer]

Anyone know whether these rumours are true ? Is there any good evidence that having 2 pilots is actually safer than one assuming good training and strict adherence to SOP's ?

I would assume they are going more down the lines of pilot decapacitation, 'cos let's face it.....anything happens to that single member and it ain't looking good. :confused:

[LateFinals]

TopBunk

My sources indicate that 2 crew will be "mandatory" rather than "reccomended" but I'm posting as I'm interested if anyone has any definitive info as opposed to speculation.

LF

[TopBunk]

WS

decapacitation I hope you mean incapacitation. Decapitation is rather extreme:}

[niknak]

I used to fly on many routes as SLF, flying on BN2 or similar which often involved single crew op's.
As an aviation professional and as a commercial passenger, I often felt and expressed the view that I would be far happier with two crew flying the aircraft, especially as I was fully aware that most of the operators on most of the routes recieved regional subsidies for flying them.
The operator could have afforded to at least have employed a pilots assistant to be there to assist with the workload and, God forbid, be there to do something if the captain was incapacitated (or decapitated:)).
I am still of the opinion that the fare paying passenger on any commercial service is fully entitled to the best protection, whatever the type of aircraft they're flying on and that includes having two crew on the flight deck, either of whom should be capable of handling the aeroplane.
Perhaps on the routes that could be affected by this proposal, it's time for the airlines to work with the CAA to reintroduce the concept of a pilots assistant.
Many such airlines do employ staff they are sponsoring to be future captains and, once they have reached a satifactory standard, these are just the people to do the P.A job, it would boost the company's public image, enhance pilot training, but most importantly, add a vital safety factor.

[Rigga]

So how many pilots do you think a commercial B206. Bo105 or AS350/355 should carry?
Correct me if I am wrong, but to Dual these would close many operators down.

[ChristiaanJ]

Does anybody have any "statistics" to further confuse the issue?

[Flugplatz]

Well said Rigga,

It would be the death-knell of many helicopter operators. Two pilots would in any case be completely over-the-top for what are basically small, uncomplicated VFR machines. How ironic that other threads are talking about shifting to UAV no-pilot options for airliners, and yet here we are discussing Cessna-sized aircraft having to have two crew!

The only exception I can think of that makes sense is for full-IFR flights or for line training needs. Should remain at Ops Manual discretion, not be mandated.

Flug

[matt_hooks]

And that instrument rating test that you do at the end of your training, that qualifies you to fly single crew.

So if single crew ops are not allowed, will you be able to use the CAA examiner as a co-pilot for the flight?

[White Knight]

Well. Being ex Aurigny Trislander pilot myself I can say that there's sweet bugger all for another pilot to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for pick their nose and look out of the window:}:}

Decapitated, Incapacitated yeah yeah - I've done 4000 hrs flying single crew public transport and I've still got my head:) All this "just in case" stuff, well, where do you draw the line? Maybe there should be 3 pilots on every flight - just in case, and never fly to a single runway airport - just in case. As for ETOPS, how terribly silly can it all be:eek::eek:

[go-si]

Decapitation ... the Klingon approach to obtaining seniority ....


Ok ... I'll get my hat ...

Happy New Year

Si

[Contacttower]

Amongst all the garbage written about EASA, the FAA, PPL/IRs and all the rest of it on the 'Private Flying' forum (supposedly 'the best in aviation and some other people' :rolleyes:) someone wrote this:

There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.

This will have a dramatic effect on corporate/private operators by shutting out professionally simulator trained and qualified pilots of the upper levels.


I know that proposal is slightly different from this one and certainly wouldn't bother the Islanders but could that be from the same source LateFinals?

[Flying Farmer]

I'm sorry if it offends Flying Pram.
Single crew commercial ops have a fairly safe record as far as incapacitation is concerned, that's possibly why there is a 6 monthly medical.
As a matter of interest, how many airframes have been lost due to this cause in recent history?

[niknak]

If the cost were to be imposed on all commercial passenger carrying aircraft opertaors, the cost would have to be passed onto the customer and the customer would still have to pay.
As a passenger, it doesn't matter to me if second pilot is picking his nose, serving coffee or operating the throttle while the captain fiddles with the rudder, safety is paramount over relative cost.
Ive heard all of the tales of how many years a pilot has spent in the air, or the fact that they passed their bi annual medical that morning, and they mean nothing if they or the aircraft, throw a wobbly when I, or anyone else, is in the back and the pilot is on their own.

[radeng]

If you don't require 2 crew for a short flight. then doesn't a 'redcutio ad absurdam' suggest that you don't need three crew on long haul flights? Then if you use an auto pilot for the cruise stage, why do you need two crew? PIC can dose for 20 or 30 minute intervals....... What are the odds of a pilot becoming incapacitated?
As SLF, I'd rather pay more for a set of well trained 'monkeys' (as the bean counters seem to see them) up the front who have relatively little to do (compared with 50 years ago) until things very occasionally go wrong - and they earn every penny they've ever got! Maybe I'm wrong, but I look on pilots as 'salt of the earth' and worth every penny they don't get.....but I could be biased.

[Der_Fischmeister]

Myself was flying for BCI a trislander ,based on the alcatrz rock alderney.
Basically it takes "balls" to fly this kind of Operation,Aurigny had Autopilots in their TRI´S ,us ,we flew hand all the way down ,while keeping the limits and look outside for any clues.

These Pilots ,flying Tris on the Channel Islands are all well qualified and really have to work for the money they earned.

Sometimes it would had been nice to have a second Guy next to you ,helping out in busy situations.

CAA need to evaluate and see whats best ,but in my eyes if u keep the Standards high (by employing well qualified pilots)there shouldnt be a Problem flying these equipment single Hand.

i served my time ,now i can make jokes flying over GCY or JER in FL410.

Learned a lot...good practice ..fantastic basement for further jobs

So long cheers#guten Rutsch
:}

[Stop Stop Stop]

It has been done before, so why not bring back the "Pilot's Assistant" namely a trained PPL who has such things as an IMC rating who was there to basically get the thing down if the boss snuffed it. WHilst it was going well, the PA helped with the radio and generally looked after the passengers and did what the maestro wanted done.

Whilst it might not be totally ideal, it IS rather overkill- not to mention expensive having two rated crew on a simple aircraft such as an Islander or Trilander.

I did this in the late eighties, flying a Caravan II as a PA. I didn't get paid (except expenses) but got some great experience flying on IFR operations and got to handle the aircraft on the empty sectors. I would bet there would be no end of people up for it!

[south coast]

Was the 'pilots assistant' able to log any hours, are they rated on the plane?

I think that if the plane is being operated under commercial rules, ie. generating income from fare paying passengers then there should be 2 pilots regardless of airplane complexity or lack of, because they expect a level of safety.

Its not that the plane is so simple it only needs 1 pilot, it is system redundancy to have 2 pilots, and we all accept varying amounts of system redundancy in the aviation world.

If that means putting the cost of a ticket up, explain why it is and I am sure most pax will accept the increase in the name of better safety.

[411A]

Hmmm, the UKCAA at it, again.:rolleyes:
Seems to me that to require a co-pilot on a small(er) aeroplane really accomplishes only one thing (besides rapid nose picking...) and that is to make the aeroplane heavier, so that in the event of an engine failure enroute, the scene of the accident is reached sooner...:}

[usedtofly]

I have flown as single pilot on piston twins and multi crew on turbine twins. I don't think the issue is really a matter of 'incapacitation', just simply that 'two heads are better than one'.

When flying a non precision approach down to minimum on a gusty windy rainy night the pressure is on, this is made safer by having someone else on the flight deck to confirm instrument and altitude settings etc. It is very easy to make a mistake on your own, a lot harder to do when another pilot is watching over you.

Personally I do not consider single pilot operations appropriate in commercial flying and would not fly as single crew again myself.

Multi crew is safer for all concerned, that evens includes the pilots!

Aviation is expensive, another pilot won't break the bank! Oh and another thing (I know it's on another thread), light piston twins should not be used for public transport, they are old, under powered, and barely stay up on one engine let alone climb with a full load of fuel and pax.

So then.........hard hat on, ear plugs in !!!

:)

UTF

[Stop Stop Stop]

South Coast, as a Pilot's Assistant you were required to log your hours as SNY (Supernumary) but could not count the hours towards your total. If the captain was also a flying instructor with a multi-engine instruction rating (as the guy I flew with had) it was possible to log the time whilst NOT engaged on a public transport flight as PuT (Pilot Under Training).

In any case, regardless of what went in the book, it was great experience and a good way for a newbie to the business to get a crack at a turboprop! At that stage most new pilots would pay to even sit in the seat let alone fly it!

[Matt Vinyl]

:DUsedtofly has hit the nail on the head there. The chances of an accident due to incapacitation are fairly remote.
The chances of an accident due to high workload, loss of SA, or even flying beyond your limits are much higher.
Whilst muti-crew operations cannot guarantee this will not happen they do lessen the odds.
The chances of an accident due to someone deliberately disobeying SOP's 'because they know better' or because they think this type of flying requires "balls" are also increased in single crew operations.
I have operated extensively on both single and multi-crew operations and I know which one I'd put my family on.

[733driver]

Just following this as someone who is not directly affected.
I have been flying multi crew from the start of my professional career and for me it is not so much about pilot incapacitation or aircraft complexity but human error.
We all make mistakes (except 411A maybe) and I challenge any captain to tell me that he has never been glad that his F/O pointed out something that he has overlooked (again, except for "know it all and has seen it all"-411A).

By the way, I think you will find that the glide ratio is not affected by the extra weight if the appropriate (higher) speed is being flown.

[llanfairpg]

Just trying to think of any commercial flights that have just gone in with single crew operating.

The first I remember is Jayne Wyams from ANT Blackpool in an Aztec over the North Sea, sadly her husband went the same way on the approach to Speke a few years back.

(RIP --Two great people)

[navajo chieftain]

Another aspect of this debate is the end of pilots age sixty plus flying single-crew commercial operations: or is it?
Having recently aquired 60+ status I was interested to read the revised format JAA class 1 medical certificate recently issued to me by a UK AME.
On the privileges and validities block, top line, it states, Quote: Expiry date of this certificate for single pilot air transport operations carrying passengers..(date entered)....unquote. Does this mean that I can continue to fly single crew commercial operations flying freight until the date entered for expiry for other commercial operations(next line down) and for multi pilot operations?

[Life's a Beech]

South Coast

Why is redundancy essential? When was the last accident found to have been caused because of crew incapacitation in a single-crew aircraft? I don't know of any. What has changed that means single-crew operations are now to be considered more risky?

We all have medicals, and the CAA has been very sensible in bringing in stricter requirements for those of us who are older and fly single-crew.

Matt, UsedToFly

That can happen in any company that has poor standards, and where too much is expected of the crew. That's why the CAA monitors AOC operations.

Single-crew operations have stricter requirements for weather and for aircraft equipment. They are very sensible and necessary requirements.

There are also many pilots who could not do the job, some simply because of flying skill but many more due to temperament. It is a job for people with confidence in themselves, but who are willing to refuse to take unnecessary risks, and to delay everything if necessary. In other words they have to have a rare combination of self-reliance and caution. I do not have this naturally, but developed it in past lives. It is something I look for in crews we recruit, and encourage through training.

This is why the pressure is very rarely on, as usedtofly suggests. We keep out of situations that are beyond the skill and experience of the crews. Some of our line crews are not even allowed to fly to normal approach minima, they have their own depending on experience. I have also flown jobs instead of other pilots, as I knew that while that pilot was perfectly capable of the flight he would be under the sort of pressure that can cause errors. My greater experienced allowed me to have spare capacity. I don't like sitting on the ground worrying about pilots, so I don't send them up unless they are safe.

Any client is entitled to ask for second crew. Some do, and we oblige. However they generally have to pay extra for the privilege, and might even have to take a larger aircraft (some aircraft couldn't even carry a single passenger, two-crew and full of fuel!). Why should they not be allowed to choose otherwise?

And usedtofly

What has suddenly changed that twin pistons shouldn't be used for public transport? They have an excellent safety record (if you ignore the dodgy charters that injure famous people).

nav chiefie

Well why should some bureaucrat in the Belgrano tell you that you can't risk your own life? Client's property would be insured.

[WindSheer]

I hope you mean incapacitation. Decapitation is rather extreme

Ha ha. I am not even going to defend myself!!
What a numpty.....:ouch::O

[MSP Aviation]

As a passenger, it doesn't matter to me if second pilot is picking his nose, serving coffee or operating the throttle while the captain fiddles with the rudder, safety is paramount over relative cost.

So one can assume you'd be willing to pay for this extra safety? That's fine, I'd rather not. You can charter a jet with two pilots, I'll take the cheaper ticket, thanks. If there was a demand for the "added safety" of two pilots, an airline that used two would pop up. But there isn't a demand for that "safety" at the expense of increased ticket prices.

[ChristiaanJ]

Life's a Beech,
Thanks for a sane answer....

[south coast]

Life's a Beech said, ' We all have medicals, and the CAA has been very sensible in bringing in stricter requirements for those of us who are older and fly single-crew.'

I was not refering to or making this an age debate, I was simply saying I think two pilots is safer than one, and I challenge you to say otherwise.

As for medicals, you are quite right, but there are 364 other days in a year, and as an MOT tells you your car is in good shape on the particular day it was tested, thats all it really tells you.

This is not about whether a single pilot is any less capable, it is not a witch hunt against single pilot operations, it is a debate about whether two pilots is safer than one.

Bearing that in mind, I believe two pilots will win every time. Now whether it is financially viable, thats something else.


You also said, ' Why is redundancy essential?'

Redundancy is among one of the main reasons aviation and flying is SO safe, how many other modes of transport have such redundancy built into them?

[Life's a Beech]

Two pilots might be marginally safer than one. However that does not mean that single-crew operations are inherently unsafe.

The debate is whether single-crew operations should continue, in other words whether they can be safe, not whether two pilots are safer than one.

Three flight-deck crew are safer than two in large jet operations, even short haul. How about 4 crew, two pilots, and engineer and an overseer, to stand back and take out all the bad decisions when the crew focuses too much on one issue, or ignores a warning? Permanently put him on oxygen, and Helios wouldn't have crashed. You can always make a safety case for a larger crew, but a balance has to be struck. Two crew operations allow one pilot to go to the loo - safety case for catheterising all crews and making them stay in their seats all the time?

It might sound silly, indeed it is. However from the point of view of a single-crew operator who tries very hard to make the operation safe, the case for second crew on a light twin sounds silly.

Redundancy is necessary in aircraft systems. However they have an inherently high probability of failure. I have had most systems fail on aircraft I have flown, including gear, alternators and engines. I know people who have had failures of all the others. However I know only one person who has ever been incapacitated while he could, medically, have been in flight (but wasn't). I know a lot of pilots and ex-pilots, and it happened long before I knew him and he was struggling to get his medical back. He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot.

Like an MOT a medical only tells you of health on the day (and remember for those in the more likely categories to suffer, it is 182 days, not 364). However like a car your body will have symptoms of deterioration for most conditions that can invalidate it, and we should all monitor for it being safe, and the medical like the MOT is legally invalid if it is known to have deteriorated below test standards.

[eyeinthesky]

Back to 'facts' after the opinions:

15th July 2008 is the point at which EASA regulations will come into force. As I understand it, no european national aviation authority will be able to issue exemptions to EASA regulations. At present, JAA regulations only allow Single Pilot Public Transport under IFR with a fully functioning autopilot. This will not change.

However, the UK CAA has issued exemptions to this rule to some operators, of whom Blue Islands and Aurigny are two examples (based upon 'grandfather rights'), which allow them to operate single pilot without an autopilot, but not into the busier airfields such as the main London ones and Manchester and Birmingham. There will be no such exemption from July, therefore they must either be two-pilot or have a serviceable autopilot.

Since there is no approved autopilot made for the Trislanders any more (although Aurigny has a few on their aircraft for which spare parts are 'difficult to find') and the cost of getting another one approved is around £300k, the picture looks bleak. Of course the question one might ask is that, assuming that the existing autopilot is being used to allow continued single-pilot operation after July 08, at what point in the schedule for the day does the single pilot declare the autopilot U/S...?:suspect:

[Flintstone]

Two pilots might be marginally safer than one. So let's see. If P1 is incapacitated P2 being there is "marginally" safer?

Three flight-deck crew are safer than two in large jet operations, even short haul. How about 4 crew, two pilots, and engineer and an overseer, to stand back and take out all the bad decisions when the crew focuses too much on one issue, or ignores a warning? Permanently put him on oxygen, and Helios wouldn't have crashed. You can always make a safety case for a larger crew, but a balance has to be struck. Two crew operations allow one pilot to go to the loo - safety case for catheterising all crews and making them stay in their seats all the time? Now you're being silly.

It might sound silly, indeed it is. See?!

However from the point of view of a single-crew operator who tries very hard to make the operation safe, the case for second crew on a light twin sounds silly. Tell the SLF that.

He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is a recorded message. Your pilot has blacked out. If this is not a critical phase of flight there is nothing to worry about. This happened once to Life's A Beech's mate and he recovered in about five minutes so bear with us and your pilot should be back from the Land Of Nod in four minutes 45 seconds.........44..........43..........42........ On the other hand if this is a critical phase of flight please put your head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye".

your body will have symptoms of deterioration for most conditions that can invalidate it, Because fit, healthy people never drop dead without warning..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/12/29/ufnmothtrib129.xml

and the medical like the MOT is legally invalid if it is known to have deteriorated below test standards. Perhaps you could tell me exactly what are the warning signs of say, a stroke? If I am due to have one in 11 months and 30 days or 5 months and 30 days if I fly single crew how will my cough and drop merchant know it's coming?

Stepping away from the medical issues how many deaths have there been in single pilot operations that might have been avoided had there been a second crewmember to confirm things like minima, memory items, MSA, QFE or QNH?

[ChristiaanJ]

Stepping away from the medical issues how many deaths have there been in single pilot operations that might have been avoided had there been a second crewmember to confirm things like minima, memory items, MSA, QFE or QNH?The first sane thing you've said.
Until we get some figures, this is just a subjective discussion based on sentiment and a perception of "safety" induced by the current trend of "the precaution principle".
Eliminate one cause of aircraft accident fatalities out of a hundred (my guess) by driving an entire branch of small airline and charter operations out of business?
To me this stinks.... of many things. Special interests? Incompetent politicians? Brown-nosing civil servants? Anybody care to add to the list?

Oh, and when will we have double controls and two drivers in taxis? Or in touring cars/buses (whatever) where the accident record with drivers falling asleep at the wheel is particularly dismal?

[Flintstone]

Sorry Christiaan but LAB's coments were so far off I found it impossible to reply in a sincere manner. Maybe I should have been more succinct? Here we go then.

Two pilots will always be more safe than one. Res ipsa loquitur, it doesn't need figures, it's obvious. I've made no comment whatsoever on costs and the effect that might have on operators, I'm talking about the concept itself.

LAB was being silly, he admitted it. Why does that make my comment to that effect other than sane?

LAB wrote that he knew a pilot who had blacked out but it would have been ok if it had happened airborne because there would have been an autopilot. Come on. You cannot seriously be allying yourself to such a comment?

I'm unsure where you stand on the issue of sudden and unforeseen incapacitation but as you lumped my response to that in the 'non-sane' camp that would suggest you agree with LAB. Really? Healthy people are never taken ill without warning or even die?

For the record I've done plenty of single pilot work.

[Life's a Beech]

Flintstone

:ugh: Why are you assuming there will be an incapacitation of the crew regularly? That is the basis of your argument. Otherwise my argument that multi-crew is only marginally safer stands.

I often tell the SLF that. It is correct.

My arguments were not far off. That is just an excuse for the lack of substance in your posts. Note that when anyone says that they don't need figures, "it's obvious", they probably have no idea what they are talking about.

Two pilots can be safer than one, but they are not always. If you actually bothered to listen in your human performance lectures then you would remember the term "risky shift". However that is not the debate you make the same mistake as South coast. The consideration is not whether multi-crew is safer, but whether single-crew is unsafe.

I was being silly to highlight how silly that mistake was. Yet you make the same argument, while accepting that the equivalent case for an airline is silly! At least my silly arguments are the ones I am using to highlight the silliness of others'!

If you really cannot understand my argument about only knowing one person with a class one medical who has ever blacked out, then I cannot see how you can make a meaningful contribution. All flight safety is based on probabilities. The probability of pilot incapacitation that affects flight safety is several orders of magnitude below the probability of an engine failure, hence we need a second engine but no second crew. That was my argument, as I was answering South Coast's comments about redundancy.

Note that the CAA agree with my "so far off" arguments, not your "so ... 'sensible, rational, well-informed'" arguments isn't it? Second crew are required in small aircraft for complexity and difficulty of operation, not for redundancy in case of incapacitation.

[Flintstone]

LAB. Please stop twisting or reinventing my comments. I'll keep my responses simple. Please answer them in a straightforward manner.

Why are you assuming there will be an incapacitation of the crew regularly? I'm not. Please show me where I wrote that.

That is the basis of your argument. No it is not. Please quote where I wrote that.

Otherwise my argument that multi-crew is only marginally safer stands. Come the day a single pilot is incapacitated how 'marginal' will the benefit be?

That is just an excuse for the lack of substance in your posts. Note that when anyone says that they don't need figures, "it's obvious", they probably have no idea what they are talking about. Including 'substance' is unnecessary, the concept is simple. If two-crew were unnecessary airlines could save a fortune in salaries.

You also say I have no idea? Please tell me the basis for your assumption. To do so would require you having knowledge of my qualifications and experience otherwise you are making uninformed guesses.

Two pilots can be safer than one, but they are not always. If you actually bothered to listen in your human performance lectures then you would remember the term "risky shift". Let's overlook the irony of the arrogance contained within that statement which contains the phrase 'human performance lectures' (and their CRM/psych content) shall we?

However that is not the debate Why bring it up then? I didn't.

you make the same mistake as South coast. I think not. I was making the point that multi-crew is safer. If I made the point that single-crew is unsafe feel free to quote me.

The consideration is not whether multi-crew is safer, but whether single-crew is unsafe. Driving cars without seatbelts used to be considered 'safe'. Would you do it now?

If you really cannot understand my argument about only knowing one person with a class one medical who has ever blacked out, then I cannot see how you can make a meaningful contribution. I understand it but am stunned that you thought that was a good case. Just read it again..........."He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot."............ Does the crassness of that statement honestly escape you?

All flight safety is based on probabilities. Indeed. That's why an additional crewmember reduces the probability of a serious accident/incident. You keep ignoring the fact that I have never written that single-crew ops are intrinsically dangerous. If I have I repeat, quote me.

Note that the CAA agree with my "so far off" arguments, not your "so ... 'sensible, rational, well-informed'" arguments isn't it? At last!! You quote me! Except I never actually wrote "sensible, rational, well informed". If fabricating quotes is the only way you feel able to continue this discussion, please don't.

Second crew are required in small aircraft for complexity and difficulty of operation, not for redundancy in case of incapacitation. Now that IS a surprise. I have flown relatively simple twin-piston engined aircraft that required two crew. Every multi-crew type rating course I've ever done has included an element of training and testing of single crew ops as the result of pilot incapacitation. Oddly enough everyone else I know who has undergone similar training has had the same. Have you found this to be the case? If not please tell me which training organisation gave you a multi-crew rating without addressing this scenario.

[Life's a Beech]

Exactly my point. Come the day. Come the day that the two engines fail on an ETOPS trip, then the third would have been quite useful.

I twist none of your comments, I interpret them with relation to the argument against single-crew operations, the subject of the thread.

Two crew are necessary on larger aircraft, flying a more difficult job. I have never denied that two crew are required for some operations. Your substance is required, but it is still sadly lacking. It is still not "obvious" to the CAA, probably the strictest aviation regulation body in the world. but it is to Flintstone, so he doesn't have to justify it!

Why do you unilaterally decide to overlook a section of what you were taught on a CAA-approved course, and decide that I am the one being arrogant? We are taught that a group decision can be more hazardous than any one individual for a reason, and that is to avoid bad decisions caused by this element of psychology. I have found that is one of the things people learn at ATPL only to forget, which is unfortunate.

Perhaps you didn't bring it up, but South Coast did, then you replied to my reply to him. Why did you do so? I certainly didn't bring it up.

You still fail to understand my point, which is a concern as it relates directly to the entire basis of flight safety. There is no crassness in that statement. It relates to the CAA's judgement of flight safety. I would ask you how many system failures you have experienced in vital systems that have some redundancy, and how many times you have suffered incapacitation in flight? How many people do you know who have suffered system failures, and how many have been incapacitated in flight? The two issues differ by several orders of magnitude (as I have already pointed out, but you ignore to concentrate on a gross misunderstanding of the issue. I'm glad I know your username, or I might suspect you were a journalist). As it happens my friend has a class II medical again, having never blacked out since years before I met him.

Driving cars without seatbelts has no bearing on the issue. Please reread your own post, it makes no sense. I cannot answer an argument that is pulled out of the air and relates to nothing rational in te debate

I have never written that single crew is safer than multi crew. If I have, then please quote me (and first make sure you know the meaning of "can be" as compared to "is" so as not to make an idiot of yourself by quoting my last post).

I was not intending to quote you. I was parodying your characterisation of my argument as "so far off" without any justification or even understanding. "sensible, rational, well informed" is my judgement of the opposite, which I assumed you thought your prejudices to be.

Look at JAR-OPS. The requirements for multi-crew operation (turbojet, pressurised turboprop, seat numbers etc.) relate to size, speed and complexity of operation, not likelihood of incapacitation (do you imagine I am less likely to keel over in a C421 than a C525? That is bizarre!). I do not deny that you train for pilot incapacitation, but that is not relevant to the argument I made. Twisting that one to a completely different issue does not help your case! Crew incapacitation is incredibly rare, and not the subject of the thread.

Face it, I agree with the CAA and JAA, although we operate a little more strictly than either requires. They are known to be over cautious if anything.

[Flintstone]

I'm busy so let's confine ourselves to one or two points.

Nowhere did I say that crew regularly become incapacitated. I never even alluded to it being a regular ocurrence yet you wrote: Why are you assuming there will be an incapacitation of the crew regularly? Why would you do that?

............but it is to Flintstone, so he doesn't have to justify it!
If you wish to stray from what I have and have not written and resort to petulance please don't. My substance is that I have a few thousand hours experience (each) of both single and multi-crew and have taught CRM and Human Performance.

The blacking out/autopilot statement was ludicrous. C'mon, admit it. ........... "He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot." How can you read that and not cringe?

The car seatbelt analogy is valid. CRM has moved on in leaps and bounds and what was accepted wisdom years ago is no longer the case. Just because some operations have been conducted one way in the past does not mean they will continue to be so.

I have never written that single crew is safer than multi crew. You did with your reference to risk shift.

I was not intending to quote you. Yet you used quotation marks. I apologise for not being able to understand your misuse of punctuation.

Of course incapacitation is a contributing factor to multi-crew requirement. No regulatory authoruty in their right mind would discount it.

Really, this is going nowhere. You posted somewhat emotively, said that I had written things I had not, formed your own conclusions without benefit of sufficient information (on me) and accuse me of being an idiot. Given this are you at all surprised I have no desire to continue any discussion with you?

[south coast]

LAB said, 'We are taught that a group decision can be more hazardous than any one individual for a reason, and that is to avoid bad decisions caused by this element of psychology.'

(I am not sure what you are implying by your above statement, that unilateral decisions are better than multi-lateral ones, also, in aviation there is never normally a 'group decision' as you put it, as that is the sole job and responsibility of the commander. However, a good commander will surely hear what his crew all think and act on all inputs, but it is never a group decision.)

And every CRM course tells us several minds with different points of view, different ideas, different understandings of the problem are far better than any single mind which is why it is always better to involve all and then the leader use all available information to make the decision.

Multiple pilots will allow for for this situation to flourish, but in a single pilot operation there is no one to challenge the individuals decision making.

I think just having someone there for the chance that when something does go wrong, and it is in bad weather and it is going to be a non-precision approach, (oddly this is what we train for, when everything is against us and it is our worst day) then the value of the second pilot to reduce the workload, to offer advice and allow input from someone thinking rationally is worth his weight in gold and I believe this is why multi pilot operations will always be safer than a single pilot operation.

You also said, 'Perhaps you didn't bring it up, but South Coast did, then you replied to my reply to him.'

What did I bring up?

[Yak97]

I believe that Aurigny, being based in the Channel Islands and therefore not part of the EU, will carry on under JAR-OPS regulations until / unless the Guernsey Authorities decide to accept EU-OPS.

That is if I understood correctly the nice CAA gentlemen who did the presentation at Cambridge last year.

[Life's a Beech]

Flintstone,

Sorry, I though it was obvious. You were disputing that a second crewman made the flight only marginally safer, with the argument that if the captain is incapacitated the flight is a lot safer. Of course that still makes a flight only marginally safer unless there is a high probability of crew incapacitation. Therefore your argument implies you believe there to be such a high probability. Either that or you were misunderstand the whole concept of flight safety, or are being dishonest in the way you make your argument!

You might well cringe, but then you still don't understand the rather simple point I was making. I really didn't think I would have to explain it to aviation professionals, and it slightly concerns me that I do!

Flight safety is based on probability. The systems we require redundancy for in commercial aviation have a relatively high probability of failure. That is why we have all experienced failures in some, as I pointed out. That is a known hazard, so we have redundancy. There is a tiny probability of multiple failure, but the risk of that has to be balanced with practicality or no aircraft would ever eave the ground.

The pilot has a very low probability of "failure". I was using my acquaintances as a crude straw poll to illustrate this. I was honest in admitting I know one person who has experienced such while holding a CAA medical. However I know a lot of pilots, and the problem he suffered would only have resulted in a flight-safety hazard had it occured in a critical stage of flight, as he only ever had one episode and it was brief. That all goes to show how low the probability is of pilot incapacitation causing an accident.

Sorry to sound harsh, but if that makes you cringe I think you might be in the wrong job.

I did mention risk shift. I also said "and first make sure you know the meaning of "can be" as compared to "is" so as not to make an idiot of yourself by quoting my last post". "Can be" means that there are certain circumstances where that might be the case. I will assume that is your poor English rather than that you don't understand what you are apparently teaching!

My post might have been a little emotive, but if you misrepresent what I say and use emotive language like dismissing my points as "so far off" then I am bound to get somewhat irritated.

[Life's a Beech]

South Coast

I really think you should look back on all your HP&L, MCC and CRM training, because you seem to have missed some important points. Yes, in ideal circumstances everything you say is correct, although the safety implications in small, slow and simple aircraft are marginal. However the circumstances when things are at their most critical are never ideal. You should have been shown cases in your MCC/CRM training where a flight-deck crew made a bad decision because each thought the others must be happy with it. You should also have seen cases where the cockpit gradient was wrong, which you seem to dismiss.

In a single-crew AOC operation each pilot passes two flight tests and one line check each year, as a statutary requirement. Most will also undergo a quality audit assessment flight and often a CAA ops assessment as well. Because they don't tend to stay long on one type, most will receive some line training on a new type as well. So their decisions processes are monitored.

Please can you actually read this bit. No-one denies that two crew are safer than one. The point is that this does not mean that one crew is unsafe :ugh:. Safety is a balance. (P.S. This is the bit you brought up, off topic, then Flintstone jumped on misunderstanding the whole point).

Please can you people stop insisting that two-crew operations are safer than single-crew, when that has never been in dispute and has no bearing on the thread?

[Life's a Beech]

Point to be made to Flintstone and South Coast equally

How come I am in agreement with every aviation authority I know of, including the all the JAA authorities and the FAA? All accept single-crew operations in light twins to be safe. I believe the FAA allows more than JAA would, and the ops manual I work to is stricter than JAR-OPS.

[plinkton]

Life's a Beech:

Flight safety is based on probability.

I cannot entirely agree with that. I would say flight safety (or rather a safe flight) is a result of doing things properly, regardless of the probability of things going wrong. Pilots should be trained to deal with events regardless of probability.

Two pilots can be safer than one, but they are not always. If you actually bothered to listen in your human performance lectures then you would remember the term "risky shift". However that is not the debate you make the same mistake as South coast. The consideration is not whether multi-crew is safer, but whether single-crew is unsafe.

When the concept of a 'risky shift' is used, it refers to a group decision, rather than specifically a two-crew decision and is also more applicable to decision making when faced with a problem that still includes risks in the outcome, rather than a tactical, operational or strategic type problem. I can't see any merit whatsoever in using this term to attack multi-crew ops or defend single-crew ops.

Surely anyone can see that multi-crew must be more safe for more time than it is less safe (if indeed it is). Also why would anyone defend flying single-crew? Surely it must be more efficient, comfortable, easier and safer with an additional pilot in the system.

The only reason I can see to defend single-crew commercial flying would be if those doing so (who are currently flying single-crew) are not capable of flying multi-crew. In this case an 'attitude adjustment' may be required, as single-crew commercial flying is on it's way out, especially after that Air Med Seneca accident.

[Life's a Beech]

plinkton

However properly a regulator or operator does the job of regulating an operation there is always a finite probability of an accident. Therefore flight safety must always be based on probability.

Risk shift was taught to me as simply when a group decision (of any sized group, even 2) is more risky than the decision any one group member would have made on his own. It has certainly influenced air accidents, we are taught about it in HP&L and given case studies in MCC and CRM courses. It doesn't only happen in decisions with risky outcomes, in fact it often refers to decisions where a safe course was available but a very unsafe course taken because each person assumed that if it wasn't safe then the other person would say so, or that someone else was making the decision where in fact no decision had been made, so a default course of action is taken. It certainly refers to tactical operational decisions, and strategic decisions are not relevant to the discussion, as the time scale means that single crew can refer to their organisation for help there.

Sorry to shout but I do not deny that overall two crew is safer than one. However, please find out what the thread is about before posting. That does not mean that single-crew operations are unsafe, or indeed that on occasion a crew can make a decision that is less safe than any one of them would have made on his own. Why have I had to write this paragraph in all the last few posts I have made? Is English comprehension really so bad in pilots?

Why is it more efficient, comfortable or easier with two crew? What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself? Why should pilots not want to fly single crew? All the pilots I have line trained are perfectly capable of flying multi-crew, have excellent CRM (it is still required as a course for single-crew) or they could not do the job well, so why make up insulting suggestions that people you don't know can't get on in a crew? Many of our pilots have done extremely well afterwards in airlines, with command on minimum time.

What on Earth makes you think single-crew operations are on their way out? Why should the Air-Med accident mean that? Did the Tenerife accident mean that all jet operations were banned? Accidents happen in aviation. They always have, and always will.

[plinkton]

Why is it more efficient, comfortable or easier with two crew? What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself?

If you were flying multi-crew, the person sitting next to you would not be 'doing nothing'.

You can't stop progress, I think 'The End Of Single Crew Commercial Flights' will happen soon.

[Silverspoonaviator]

I see a similar situation in Scuba diving:

Padi doctrines teach that divers must be paired.

Great treory, however many times the pair have never met before, and the so called SOP's are assumed, and even sometimes discussed.
So when a problem actually occurs, in theory they can resolve the problem together, and live to dive another day.

BUT now get an experienced diver, (Captain), and a very inexperienced diver low hours, and not very experienced, and not really current, ( new T/Red Copilot). Both situations are dangerous, as the Captain often has to do both jobs, as the copilot is so far behind the yoke, he is a liability. Add language and cultural differences, and you will see how this plot line develops.

I have dived with students, try dives, and minimal experienced divers, and I hope that if they had a problem, I could resolve it................but if I had a problem and needed them NOW, I would die.

I see the same in the cockpit, I have flown with total idiots, and been Captain, fyrst officer, and instructor, and perhaps safety plot too.
That is dangerous.

When flying SP in the good old days, I was 100% prepared for the problems, and only myself to blaim. 5000 hrs SP, piston twins, and light jets.

Just my 1/2p worth...

[Life's a Beech]

Plinkton

Of course they would be doing nothing. In light twins there is nothing for them to do! Most of the flight there is little for me to do!

I have flown with a pilot's assistant and given them the radio and perhaps the plog, even the navigation (I have also been the "pilot's assistant"). However this actually makes things less efficient. I have to make decisions and communicate with them, so replies to radio calls are delayed, leading to problems of being stepped on by ATC's repeat, and I can get out of the loop with flight progress unless I look at the plog too so it is passed back and forth. I also have to monitor the navigation to keep situational awareness, so might as well do it myself. People who don't have the capacity to do it all themselves without difficulty just don't pass a line check in this business (yes in initial line training the tasks are divided for the first few sectors, unless the new pilot is especially good, while he learns how to manage the cockpit. However ten sectors usually leaves the pilot easily able to cope with everything).

The only exception would be on final approach in very poor weather, when another pair of eyes would be very useful, but the instrument approach minima are different single-crew. However we simply accept that we fly to the more restrictive minima, and it is very rarely an issue.

Why do you define the end of certain flight operations "progress"? Why should change happen for change's sake, i.e. why should we not stop something you define as "progress"?

Silverspoon

Thanks for that. Of course it doesn't mean single pilot is safer or even as safe overall (as I have always accepted), but it again shows reasons why multi-crew operations are not always necessarily safer.

[south coast]

LAB said, 'In a single-crew AOC operation each pilot passes two flight tests and one line check each year, as a statutary requirement.'

We all do this for JAR-OPS, a LST, OPC and a Line check, so that is not unique to single pilot AOC operators, not sure what you meant by this.

LAB said, 'South Coast - I really think you should look back on all your HP&L, MCC and CRM training, because you seem to have missed some important points.'

I really think you should go back and re-read as you have failed to understand the concept of multi crew operations, perhaps that is why you are not in one.

LAB also said this, 'What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself?'

With such a mind set it is probably better you stay as a single pilot operation because no one wants to sit next to someone who knows it all.

[Life's a Beech]

South Coast

I realise all operations have the check flights. However I was not discussing multi-crew operations. You suggested that the decision-making processes of single-crew pilots was in doubt. I was pointing out how they are monitored. I am not sure how the tests undergone in a multi-crew operation has anything to do with that. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

I have never tried to fly a multi-crew aeroplane, that is why I am not flying in one. Some of us are currently enjoying working single-crew and don't yet want anything else. I am sure that one day I will, but I have no problem with CRM or the concepts. I have actually pointed out where you misunderstand them, and you cannot answer that so I suspect I know them rather better than you do.

You still haven't explained why it would be more efficient to have someone else there. It isn't true just because you say it. You might, for all I know, be a captain, but that does not mean we have to accept your word for everything off the flight-deck, and with your attitude I am very glad you are not my captain! It suggests a dictatorial attitude, with no consideration for the opinions of others.

It certainly isn't more efficient to close down a whole sector of the industry! Think of that next time you're tech in the back end of Eastern Europe and need a small part delivering urgently.

[smallfry]

This thread is running amuck.

If I understand correctly, the requirement for single crew IFR commercial ops is that the aircraft needs to have an autopilot.
It was then pointed out that the channel island operators with twin islanders and trilanders would have a problem with this requirement.
Somewhere this debate turned into a debate on singlecrew rather than multicrew operations.
Now, I have flown both types of operation, GA and Airline and Corporate. While I cannot deem single crew operations as unsafe, I truly believe that multi crew is safer.
My main point of contention is that Life's a beech seems to be the defender of single crew, (even potentially hazardous situations where the pilot blacks-out?!), because the second crew member has nothing to do?
He admits that he has never flown multicrew ops, but has learnt to be confident and cautious on his own. Great. I just feel that as others have pointed out he hasn't quite got the concept of multi crew...

Quote

Of course they would be doing nothing. In light twins there is nothing for them to do! Most of the flight there is little for me to do!

I have flown with a pilot's assistant and given them the radio and perhaps the plog, even the navigation (I have also been the "pilot's assistant"). However this actually makes things less efficient. I have to make decisions and communicate with them, so replies to radio calls are delayed, leading to problems of being stepped on by ATC's repeat, and I can get out of the loop with flight progress unless I look at the plog too so it is passed back and forth. I also have to monitor the navigation to keep situational awareness, so might as well do it myself. People who don't have the capacity to do it all themselves without difficulty just don't pass a line check in this business (yes in initial line training the tasks are divided for the first few sectors, unless the new pilot is especially good, while he learns how to manage the cockpit. However ten sectors usually leaves the pilot easily able to cope with everything).

The only exception would be on final approach in very poor weather, when another pair of eyes would be very useful, but the instrument approach minima are different single-crew. However we simply accept that we fly to the more restrictive minima, and it is very rarely an issue.

End Quote.

Honestly, The above quote worries me. CRM issues galore! I love the " I might as well do it myself bit" - priceless!

Fill your boots. Have a great life, and enjoy the flying. Each to their own, but I don't think Life's a beech is in a position to comment on Multi Crew Ops. (Even though he has attended and listened to all the Human factors / CRM lectures! - and picked up on Risk shift - which is taught so that crews can be aware of it, enhancing safety, surely not a reason to dismiss the whole concept of multi crew!)


Back to the point? Was it single crew with autopilot? or no single crew at all?

:)

[plinkton]

How many of these aircraft flown single-crew, public transport (with the requirement for a servicable autopilot), actually have a servicable one?

...and what exactly is the definition of servicable? Does it have to work in all modes?

[ChristiaanJ]

Having been involved in single-pilot IFR certification, but quite some time ago....
Can anybody quote the links to the current UK CAA requirements, so I can form my own judgment?

[Flintstone]

Silverspoon. You can't really generalise in that way. Not ALL low time pilots would prove useless when called upon. As an ex-instructor you'd have seen for yourself that there are those who instantly take to flying and those who don't. This trend continues into the commercial world where I've flown with a reasonable number of new-hires on their line training. As in most walks of life there are always going to be the good, bad and (looking around these forums) the mad and downright dangerous. Until somebody invents a way of producing instant experts this will always be the case.

South Coast sums it up perfectly. LAB, you make a far better case for single pilot operation than I think you realise. Your posts display worrying trends which make it deeply ironic that you should tell him/her (SC) to go back to the CRM books.

Plinkton is probably right. The end of single crew ops may be coming and that's no bad thing.

Back to the beach for me, carry on.

[Life's a Beech]

This discussion is getting pointless, as smallfry suggests. Sorry I have made personal comments, I should not have despite having insults thrown at me. You cannot judge my CRM from your computer keyboard. Flintstone, you of all people as an instructor in such matters should know this.

The actual comprehension shown by those arguing against single-crew operations is so poor that it is pointless me posting anything, or it will be misrepresented.

smallfry

Actually the best argument I could give for a second crewman is not too much for one to do, it is boredom. You have just thrown some random insults around, not mad a case for having anything for a second crewmember to do. Why, for example, should I not take care of the navigation myself? You don't even try to explain.

Of course if we were multi-crew as standard there would be SOPs which would make the integration of tasks easier. However I still don't think that would be more efficient (which was the argument). It is just not needed in such simple aircraft, for the sort of pilots we in single-crew operations check to line.

[Flintstone]

There are what our American cousins would call some 'anger issues' showing though here which are somewhat worrying given the line of work involved and the sound of back pedalling isn't helping much.

having insults thrown at me I re-read the entire thread (God help me) in the search for these insults. The nearest I came were the words 'silly' (to which you admitted) and 'petulance' which hardly qualifies.

Your posts however have been somewhat more aggressive. Nothing earth shattering but I think you accused me of being dishonest back there somewhere. Oh, and called me an idiot a couple of times. The one that really hurt though was my "poor english". I'm wounded, truly wounded.

But you do owe me a new ironymeter because mine bent the needle when you wrote (to SC) "We don't have to accept your word for everything.......dictatorial....". Bloody funny if it weren't such an alarming indicator along with "Having a pilot's assistant is less efficient........I have to make decisions and communicate with them". As someone else wrote, I don't think you've quite grasped this new fangled multi-crew concept.

In all seriousness LAB, you do portray some worrying traits.

[plinkton]

Life's a Beech:


Sorry I have made personal comments, I should not have despite having insults thrown at me.


Well done, the first step towards resolving any personal problems is admitting to them.

[south coast]

LAB reminds me of someone else who used to post on here...cant remember his name, but your style reminds me of someone who previously posted on pprune.

LAB, did you used to post under a different name?

[Flintstone]

"Send in the clowwwwwwwwns..........."



I know, I know. I can't whistle either.

[G-AWZK]

Would an additional pilot have saved 5 lives in this case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1111467.stm

[Life's a Beech]

Ah, seems that since I have been away the thread has gone even further from relevance! I cannot add anything else, apart from replying to AWZK, as this seems no-one else has anything to add. However I can correct some of the misrepresentation.

The CAA are not going to stop single-crew operations. They have always been considered safe, if properly regulated. If the CAA moved against them they would immediately be hit by several huge lawsuits, and they would back down. The discussion is therefore pointless.

G-AWZK

The most interesting thing about that is that you have to go back 6 years to find one accident, and it is an incident that today would almost certainly have been flown with a pilot's assistant!

Flintstone - how can claiming what I say is so far off you cannot be sincere be anything but a calculated insult? OK, it seems it was, as all your posts since, calculated to hide the fact that you hadn't understood the thread, and started arguing at cross purposes (about single crew being less safe than multi-crew, rather than single crew being safe for public transport which was the issue), but still a calculated insult.

Plinkton

I don't think responding to personal comments with further personal comments constitutes a "personal problem"! It is a pointless argument, that is all. However that seems to fit in with the last few pages of this thread.

[llanfairpg]

The most interesting thing about that is that you have to go back 6 years to find one accident, and it is an incident that today would almost certainly have been flown with a pilot's assistant!

The last one I remember was Keith Wyhams from Blackpool going into Speke.

I think he had a heart attack and went into the Mersey, if thiss is the one you are reffering to would he have needed a pilots assistant? I thought it was a Navajo

[Life's a Beech]

That was the one G-AWZK linked to.

Most organisations that hire aircraft to carry their personnel, especially medical personnel and those in the oil industry, demand two crew. Some private individuals do too, but they are responsible for their own decisions (of course companies are responsible for the safety of their people if they have chartered an aircraft). With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot.

[Flintstone]

LAB, what on Earth are you on about? Calculated insult? A shame that your fragile ego translates anything contrary to your own hide bound, cast in stone, immutable opinions thusly but I'd say that's something that you rather than I need address.

The irony of such an acccusation, from you of all people, is overwhelming. I am amazed at the outright rudeness, arrogance and pomposity of some of your comments to people on this site. A brief trawl through your posting history is enough to make a civilised person cringe so accusing someone else of being insulting is nothing short of an own goal. If you wish to claim otherwise I'd be happy to cut and paste a few quotes.

[His dudeness]

"(1) Anyone know whether these rumours are true ?
(2) Is there any good evidence that having 2 pilots is actually safer than one assuming good training and strict adherence to SOP's ?"

That was the original question... (numbers by me)

LAB says (answering (1):"The CAA are not going to stop single-crew operations. They have always been considered safe, if properly regulated. If the CAA moved against them they would immediately be hit by several huge lawsuits, and they would back down. The discussion is therefore pointless."

You should have answered so on day one! Especially the bit:"The discussion is therefore pointless" would have saved a lot of effort... :}

Lets face it,(answering 2) flying Single pilot in IMC is in NO way as safe as flying 2 man. Just check the link out.
PROVIDED: we are talking about well trained crew in both cases.

And, lets face it: not to fly Single crew would mean the end of a lot of entreprises, mainly the ones that just could survive after introduction of JAROPS, which has just increased the workload of postholders and doubled or trippled the paperflow within commercial aviation departments.

I wouldn´t be to surprised if EASA would do their "best" to forbid SPOps, on grounds and motivation not really serving the public, but their purposes, mainly being important!

I think any sensible passenger and freightclient can decide for themselves, when been given proper information: "this flight is done with a single pilot." Mandatory on the contracts, tickets and whatnot would do the trick. IMO.

BTW, I´ve got roughly 1000 hrs SP hrs and 6400 dual crew under my belt (albeit SP only on Beech 200´s - with good AP´s,EFIS / FMS, WX RDR etc.)

[newcomer]

God two crew would be a dream esp with these BKN002 AND 2000M VIS evening, im not saying dont have Single pilot skills but a 2nd pair of eyes would sure help esp when told if im told to keep best speed to 4 miles. But I cant see him being there since we couldnt carry our contract frt weight. 90kg in my SP Twin turbine isnt really a big deal but 90kg is a piston twin now might as well ground the flight.

[G-AWZK]

Life's a beech (or is it Send Clowns again?)

If you are ooking for something more recent, I suggest you have read through this accident report:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports/2_2006__g_bomg.cfm

Given that the investigation identified the following causal factors:
1. The pilot allowed the aircraft to descend below the minimum altitude for the aircraft’s position on the approach procedure, and this descent probably continued unchecked until the aircraft flew into the sea.
2. A combination of fatigue, workload and lack of recent flying practise probably contributed to the pilot’s reduced performance.
3. The pilot may have been subject to an undetermined influence such as disorientation, distraction or a subtle incapacitation, which affected his ability to safely control the aircraft’s flightpath.

I feel that an additional pilot in this case would have saved the AAIB a job.

In fact section 3 of the report contains the following sentence:

21. The presence of a second pilot may have prevented the accident.

[Life's a Beech]

Why the random, bizarre connection with another person who hasn't posted in years?

It might be that another pilot would have prevented the accident. However I could point you to many accident reports for multi-crew aircraft. We are not talking about the known fact that there are accidents, or that multi-crew operations are marginally safer. As already pointed out, the subject is whether single-crew operations are unsafe or due to be banned. Your post does not argue to either case.

[Life's a Beech]

Flintstone

I don't insult people who have not either insulted me or made some offensive, ignorant remark. You are still way off topic, as you have always been. The thread seems to have spiralled into pointless contention since you posted, despite the fact that you haven't said anything that supports the idea that single-crew PT is unsafe or, more pertinently to the thread, is likely to be banned.

It is not unsafe. It is not going to be banned. The marginal additional safety of second crew is irrelevant.

[plinkton]

Life's a Beech:

It is not unsafe. It is not going to be banned. The marginal additional safety of second crew is irrelevant.

Some years ago (in 1990) I sat in the desert, talking with a bunch of colleagues about our situation. Suddenly one piped up:

"...there won't be a war, we won't be bombing them, this will all blow over and everybody will be going home soon."

This came from an intelligent, well-educated guy. He was just trying to convince himself. Some weeks later all hell broke loose in the Middle East and as we know, flared up again in 2003.

Personally, I think the ball is already rolling and single-crew operations will be reduced within 5 years at most. My prediction is that they will be limited to flying instruction and day VFR flights, maybe it will take longer but it's on its way out.

Life's a Beech:


With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot.


I cannot agree with that, an aircraft could cause an accident due to runway incursion, or a mid-air collision, or crash on a well-populated area.

[blueplume]

Hi Martin, how's life at Cirrus?

[Life's a Beech]

Plinkton

I said "significant risk". The wording was quite deliberate.

It won't be banned. There is no hint in the industry, from the CAA, from JAA or in EU-OPS, the latest regulations that are not even widely available yet which are to be implemented later this year (I know someone with an advance copy). That strongly suggests there are no plans to ban single-drew public transport. In addition the owners of every GA company involved would sue the CAA or EASA for millions, and hold up any such ruling in the courts for years.

Personally you can predict what you like. Single-crew operations have already reduced, due to the market not regulation, probably to the smallest they will be for a while. I suspect a steady state or minor growth for this year.

This subject is pointless. Bye!

[plinkton]

Life's a Beech:

I said "significant risk". The wording was quite deliberate.


Could you expand a little on what you mean by this. Do you mean significant risk of an accident compared to insignificant risk of accident?

or

Risk of an accident the same but in the case of single-crew freight flights, the outcome will be significant compared to the outcome where passengers are carried rather than freight.

Because, the way I read what you said:

With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot.

...It sounds like you are discounting any other person or object being involved, this is something no-one can predict. If, as you say "With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot", you really should define that risk.

[flynowpaylater]

Having read the links and the reports of these accidents, the issue seems to be thoroughness of the class 1 medical, not whether it is single crew or not.

If a pilot has a heart condition, such as the Liverpool accident, surely he shouldn't be flying at all ? The CAA medical didn't pick up on this - why not? The whole idea of pilots having medical's is to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps the CAA should make the medical more thorough.

If all single crew ops were banned, it would eliminate a whole level of aviation. It just isn't feasable to operate light twins 2 crew.

[Life's a Beech]

plinkton

When I said "With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot" I mean that on a freight flight the risk of an accident involving any person other than the crew is vanishingly small. I am not trying to predict anything. I am not discounting anything or anyone. The risk varies, depending on far more factors than we can possibly discuss here, so defining it is far beyond the scope of this medium.

[plinkton]

I can see the debate here is drying up slightly. However...

flynowpaylater:

Having read the links and the reports of these accidents, the issue seems to be thoroughness of the class 1 medical, not whether it is single crew or not.

If a pilot has a heart condition, such as the Liverpool accident, surely he shouldn't be flying at all ? The CAA medical didn't pick up on this - why not? The whole idea of pilots having medical's is to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps the CAA should make the medical more thorough.

If all single crew ops were banned, it would eliminate a whole level of aviation. It just isn't feasable to operate light twins 2 crew.

This is a good point, the pilot must have been having medicals to CAA standards including ECG's, etc. How the hell did this accident happen?

[usedtofly]

IMHO only those pilots that have flown both single crew and multi crew are best placed to debate this issue. Looking at many of the comments here it would appear that single crew pilots are 'defending their corner' (quite understandable) but as they do not have multi crew experience I fail to see how they can really comment without bias.

As I have said previously, I have flown both SPA and MPA operations and feel suitably qualified to offer a wider point of view.

Multi crew operations are safer for all concerned. It is not simply a matter of training or SOP's but back to my previous statement that two heads are better than one.

I readily accept that as a multi crew pilot I am perhaps in a safer position to accept the notion of a stop to single crew flying but that's just the way it is.......sorry.

I still maintain that all IFR public transport flights should be multi crew (regardless of the cost).

UTF

[His dudeness]

"This is a good point, the pilot must have been having medicals to CAA standards including ECG's, etc. How the hell did this accident happen?"

Happens every day ! Unless a medical would involve a heart surgery (to REALLY `look it up`).
Your heart can give the best possible readings on the meter and as you walk out, stop working. Fact of life, as my Surgeon said, all the checks you can fool you. Thats why medicine isn´t as easy as piloting, IMO. A medical just says that you where okay within limits on the very day of making the tests. And thats good enough, methinks.

But apart from these things - seldom enough - a lot of pilots (especially with small operators) do fly when they actually shouldn´t. But they feel a need to, since often there is no one to replace them or they are within probation period or whatever other reason. Been there, done that. Thats the time you really like to have a second pilot with you (please note: I´m not saying I dislike a second chap else!). Having a cold or neck pain from a bad hotel pillow doesn´t really increase my performance...

[Life's a Beech]

usedtofly

Why? We are not discussing multi-crew flying. We are debating single-crew flying, so why is it necessary to have flown multi-crew to have a reasoned argument? I suspect you have made the same assumption as others, that there is any debate here about whether multi-crew is safer than single, which if there is I have not noticed!

Where are your statistics to show multi-crew is far safer? What is your definition of "far" safer, in statistical terms? I think it would be very difficult to quantify, but you need to try!

I would suggest that saying multi-crew is far safer is incorrect. Single-crew operations are statistically very safe, with very few accidents in legal public-transport operations, so even if there were no accidents in multi-crew aircraft I wouldn't use the term far safer. As there are multi-crew accidents, I suggest it is only marginally safer.

His dudeness

For that reason I would like to change some of the common practices in this end of the industry. In fact we have changed some. For example some of our competitors don't pay their pilots a salary, or only a small retainer, and pilots only get paid for flying. That increases the pressure to fly and not call in sick! There have also been some overbearing characters who try to force pilots to fly when they don't want to.

[Bearing 123]

If I could just jump in here.
I've read this thread with interest as I have done and still do both, Single crew and Multi crew. I don't think it's about statistics, but about the potential for an accident. I agree that most single pilot Ops are on a pay as you fly basis and the pressure is on to fly regardless otherwise no dosh.

Their are Pros and Cons for both, but I am convinced that Multi crew is safer then single crew and here's why in my opinion.
When I fly single crew I have a workload and I manage it accordingly. I do (A) at a certain point and I do (B) at a certain point. More than once I have been approaching a busy airport, only to be given a different STAR than I was expecting, instructed to take up the hold etc and as you will know things get rather busy rather fast. sometimes the result is that I forget to do (A) and I forget to do (B)
When I fly multi crew, delegation kicks in and that workload can be shared, hence (A) and (B) don't get forgotten.
Now, I'm not trying to teach anybody on here to suck eggs as I'm sure we all know the above, but I know for a fact that my passengers, even though they don't know the in's and out's feel happier with two pilots. On one busy sector I had to put a pax in the co-pilot seat in a B200. Half way through the flight he asked what would happen if I passed out? What could I say to re-assure him? Don't worry thats not going to happen? or "Well I'm afraid you'll have to take over"
People think that because we have continous medicals we are bullet proof and that is rubbish. As stated previously, an ECG will show perfectly and then you can drop dead from a heart attack, putting your shirt back on.

You can't beat Multi-engine, Multi-crew end of story. Even with a total newbie with a brand new fATPL in the right seat, that you have to keep double checking, just to make sure they are doing it right. At least you are double checking and two heads are always better than one even if one of them hasn't got the relevant experience yet.

Cheers
Bearing 123

[Life's a Beech]

Bearing 123

But this thread is not about multi-crew operations. It is accepted that they are safer, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. Everything you say is true, but it doesn't make single-crew ops unsafe, it just means that more care must be taken in selecting and training crews, and in the way the aircraft are operated.

For the record if you are comparing multi-crew to single-crew, then it is about statistics and must always be. There is always potential for an accident, however large the crew - AN-26s have crashed due to pilot error, and they have five crew. The comparison must take into account the comparative likelihood of crash, which cannot be judged without some statistical element. However that is not the subject of the thread! Single-crew ops cannot just be changed to multi-crew ops, so they will only be banned if they are unsafe, not simply because single-crew ops are safer.

[Bearing 123]

Life's a Beech,

All fair points and well made.
I agree that single crew ops is the poor relation of flying. It is well documented that the first job most newbies get is the hardest to do. More training and better wages would improve things considerably as taking a guy out of flying instructing etc and putting him (or her) into night all weather single pilot IFR ops almost with no extra training apart from an OPC is bordering on insane. Yes we've all had to do it, but at the first chance of a decent job with a higher life expectancy we bolted. Better training and better wages would at least keep the experienced people in the jobs for longer and also less pressure to fly regardless would also help.

[flynowpaylater]

Bearing - totally agree.
That is why we spend a lot of time recruiting the "right" pilots, and then spend more time, and money training them. They also get a salary, flight pay, night stop allowance, holiday pay and BUPA cover. They are also issued with a company credit card, and company mobile phone.

Once on line, we don't send them on the more demanding charters until they have accrued some on-line experience. Handling, flight planning, and a thorough crew brief are all sorted by the ops staff. All flights are conducted IFR, unless it is a positioning leg on a short sector, and the pilot elects to do so.

why do we do this ? - Basically, because it makes commercial sense to do so.
A well trained, motivated staff member, whether a pilot or other, will deliver a much better service to the customer.......who in turn is more likely to use your company again...and again...and again. This in turn brings your unit cost down, and allows the company to expand.

Single crew has a bad name, mainly because it is entry level into commercial aviation, and therefore a lot more idiots running companies at that level. Just for the record, Titan Airways, Flightline, LEA, and a whole host of biz jet operators started life as single crew operators. Run properly, and it safe and rewarding.

[800m RVR]

It seems to me that to state that single crew ops are safe or unsafe is over simplifying things...

Where do you draw the line between safe and unsafe?? Ask many different people that question and you will get as many different answers as the answer will be based on how they percieve the level of risk.

A PPL who happily bumbles accross the channel in the middle of winter in a light piston single would not do so unless he percieved it as safe.

A pilot who flies single pilot public transport in a piston aircraft would not do so unless he percieved it as safe, however he may not percieve what the PPL is doing as safe even if he has done this before himself.

A pilot who flies multi crew public transport in a jet aircraft would not do so unless he percieved it as being safe, however he may not percieve what the guy flying single crew is doing to be safe, even if he has done this before himself.

I don't think anybody would dispute that the level of risk decreases accross those three scenarios, it just depends what level of risk is acceptable to the individual (or the CAA) which is where they will draw the line Safe/Unsafe.

At one point Airlines percieved that piston twins with one pilot were a safe form of transport for possitioning their crews, now following the crash with the airtours crew in scotland most have decided that it is unsafe, the level of risk hasn't changed, just the airlines/crews perception of it.

I have flown all three scenarios that I listed above and my perception of what is Safe/Unsafe has certainly changed...

[Flintstone]

LAB

Y'know, I contemplated quoting a selection of your 'off' comments here to prove my point but was spoiled for choice. Try clicking on 'Find more posts' in your profile sometime and check the tone of some of the things you write. If they don't make you uncomfortable there's something wrong.

I'm relieved (for your sake) that you're not the reincarnation of Send Clowns because then I would have to really dislike you. Met the cove at a PPRuNe bash once. He spent at least half an hour mithering on about how crap his life as a flying instructor was, how nobody would give him a "decent" job (his words) and how nobody seemed to like him. I bought him a drink and the lousy little toad shuffled off without even having the decency to thank me.

Good job he's someone else, eh?

[421]

The incident in Scotland in the C404 was a two crew operation, as specified by Airtours in their contract with the company, although the co-pilot was classified as a pilot's assistant.

RIP JE.

[flynowpaylater]

RVR, the unfortunate accident with the Airtours crew was, as I understand, as a result of an engine failure, and the wrong engine being identified and shut down. This has nothing to do with single crew, as the same basic error at Kegworth occurred in a 737-400.

By your rationale, a 747 classic, is safer than a 747-400 because you have more crew members in the cockpit. The PPL is considered less safe, mainly because the aircraft only has 1 engine. This is not a debate about aircraft types, but the number of flight deck crew.

Light piston twins are simple aircraft, and therefore the pilot doesn't have the extra workload that a jet pilot has in managing the various systems....hence the requirement of 2 crew. Notwithstanding the fact that they go a lot faster, and are a lot heavier.

Lets compare apples with apples.

[usedtofly]

Bearing 123.......................I fully agree, well said.

LAB...............me thinks you doth protesteth too much!

I'll turn this on it's head.................give me a GOOD reason why single pilot ops is a good thing (excluding price)

UTF:)

[newcomer]

my bag has its own seat and my coffee cup is always really close, but i guess a hostie would be good to actually make my coffee

[ChristiaanJ]

UTF,
I'll turn this on it's head.................give me a GOOD reason why single pilot ops is a good thing
Simple. It allows me to maintain full SA of the outside world, rather than have to divert part of it to a whingeing bored **** in the other seat.

:rolleyes:

[usedtofly]

Whoops, forgot to say comedians and control freaks need not reply :)

[ChristiaanJ]

Whoops, forgot to say comedians and control freaks need not replyUnless you've flown single-pilot IFR on an AB212 over the North Sea, maybe you could refrain from fatuous remarks.

[Flintstone]

It allows me to maintain full SA of the outside world, rather than have to divert part of it to a whingeing bored **** in the other seat.

Christiaan. If you really think like that then perhaps you're another candidate for permanent single crew ops. Then again, this whinger. Didn't go by the name of 'Send Clowns' did he?

[Life's a Beech]

usedtofly

I am not sure it is possible to explain things any more simply. I will try it a different way instead, to see if you understand.

What is the reason that some people think a whole sector of the industry is going to be closed? I have given very solid evidence that it is not imminently to be closed, and good reasons why it would be difficult to close it, yet those that think it will be have given nothing but unattributed speculation!

What is the reason that some people think that sector of the industry should be closed? The people working in an existing, successful industry don't have to justify why it should exist. Those that suggest it should be closed have to justify why. You can't simply resort to saying multi-crew is safer. That is a reason for having multi-crew operations, not a reason for having no single-crew operations.

Your logic, along with most others here so far, is flawed, it is inverted. I am not advocating a new way of operating that I have to justify. You are advocating closing a whole sector of the industry, and you have to justify that. What is your justification for demanding that cost is taken out of the equation?

[His dudeness]

"Your logic, along with most others here so far, is flawed, it is inverted. I am not advocating a new way of operating that I have to justify. You are advocating closing a whole sector of the industry, and you have to justify that. What is your justification for demanding that cost is taken out of the equation?"

Well, things change. I didn´t like JAROPS 1 when it came and I still don´t like now. However, I had to deal with it. APPARENTLY it makes everything safer. We now have to introduce CAMO for every airplane there is in EASA country, because someone thought (EASA CLOWNS) it is safer. A lot of JAROPS 1 operators by the way urge JAROPS 2... and it will come as a "safety measure". Thats a load of crap, but it is the way the modern world works. Cover up your ar$e is the name of the game.

Now I still think that flying single pilot is less safe than 2 crew. And I still think a passenger or freight agent should have the choice when informed properly about the risks. If not, we´d have to forbid ANY form of SP flying. No PA28, no C152 without 2 man crew.

[Life's a Beech]

Flinstone

And if you look at the first post on this thread, the first thing you wrote was to distortion of what I said. You dishonestly implied that I said something incorrect, despite quoting my post (unless we are to believe you are not intelligent enough to understand my meaning, which I don't believe). From that point on this whole thread deteriorated into a ridiculous, combative, pointless set of misunderstandings, until this page where it calmed down when you didn't post. Coincidence?

That is why I really can't be bothered to write anything more to you unless you come up with something rational posted in a civilised manner.

[plinkton]

OK, I have a question for anyone (but I would be interested in an answer from Life's a Beech):

For the purpose of getting from A to B, by air, you are getting on an aircraft or putting a passenger / freight onto an aircraft.

Discounting weather / cost / weight, etc. (when asked about the flight crew), which would you prefer:

Two pilots or one?

Answer with one word only, either one or two. I'll start:

Two.

[newcomer]

I had 8 Pax on a charter flight today and the very first question I was asked was, where is the other pilot. and when i said its not required on this plane, you should have seen there faces. After the 1 hr flight and a nice landing (gotta love those trailing link undercarriages) the 8 guys couldnt have been happier

[800m RVR]

FNPLI think you missed the point of my post, the reason that I used the example of the Airtours crash was because I believe that it did change a lot of airlines PERCEPTION of wheather it was safe for them to send their crews on light piston twins, the reason for that crash is irrelevent to the point, it is the effect it had on the perception of safe/unsafe.If you want to compare "apples with apples" then stating that a piston twin is an simpler aircraft to fly and therefore should be easier to fly for a single pilot than a "fast heavy jet" is not comparing apples with apples. A piston twin is a lot more complicated to operate than a Jet with just two levers for the power, compare the actions you would take upon loosing an engine , which is more simple to operate single crew now....Having flown flown both piston twins single/multi crew and business jets multi crew, if I was to go back to operating single crew then I would feel much safer in the jet with all its modern aids than I would in the piston twin.However the CAA don't allow us to fly jets single crew (commercially) and there are very few piston twins being operated multi crew (by which I mean trained to operate as a crew, not sticking a pilots assistant in the RHS) so it is always going to be very difficult to compare apples with apples.If you re-read my original post then you will note that I am pointing out that peoples perceptions are changed by there experience, through my career I have percieved each of the examples I gave as "safe" however this perception has been changed by experience of something that was "saf(er)" which then lead me to percieve that what I had done in the past was "unsafe", maybe those who are so strongly defending single pilot operations (which is generally in piston twins) are doing so because they have either not experienced the safer option (to change their perception) or have to much to loose financially if they percieve these ops to be unsafe (so their perception has been coulored by these commercal issues).And actually I do think that a pretty good case could be argued that a 747-400 with 3 crew would be safer that a 747-400 with 2 crew, however comparing a 400 with a classic is not apples with apples.Hence my point, its not as simple as single pilot ops: safe/unsafe, safer is an easy question to answer but safe/unsafe depends on how you percieve the risk....

[Life's a Beech]

plinkton

Irrelevant question. Weight and cost are imprtant issues, of course weight is a critical flight-safety issue. Discounting them, which is unrealistic, makes the question meaningless in the real world. It is pointless to consider cases that have nothing to do with the real world.

You haven't given any reason for banning a safe, successful sector of the industry. Remember that I am in agreement with the JAA, all the individual European authorities, the FAA, CASA etc. The ball's in your court!

I suggest you (and others) go back to the beginning of this thread and look at the premise. It is about gossip about banning single-crew flying in an area that has two airlines with concessions to fly single-crew IFR without autopilot. It happens I think their concession is justified, considering the way they operate, but that is specific to them.

RVR

I would have to take issue with your point about perceptions. OK I would not fly a charter across water or in IMC or at night in a single. However I would still fly in that way myself, my perception hasn't changed. It is not as safe as flying a twin, but for private flying it is, in my opinion, sufficiently safe. Not safe enough for charter though.

[plinkton]

I'll take that as a one then.

[G-AWZK]

Life's a clown,

I am assuming you have not read the full report into the Loganair crash, to help you I will quote part it:

4.2 Safety Recommendation 2006-102: Considering the unique circumstances of air ambulance flights, the Civil Aviation Authority, in conjunction with the Joint Aviation Authorities should review the circumstances in which a second pilot is required for public transport flights operating air ambulance services.

4.3 Safety Recommendation 2006-103: The Civil Aviation Authority, in
conjunction with the Joint Aviation Authorities, should consider mandating the
carriage of a radio altimeter, or other independent low height warning device,
for public transport IFR flights operating with a single pilot.

My contacts at EASA indicate that the discussions, in typical JAA/EASA fashion, have ranged further than just air ambulance flights. It comes as no surprise that this sort of rumour begins to do the rounds, and may have some weight to it. It may also come as no surprise, therefore, that there may well be some sort of restriction on single pilot ops mandated by EASA.

The second safety recommendation does appear to be gaining some acceptance at EASA. Question is what is cheaper? A pilots assistant or a rad alt?

What would you rather have? Another electronic box or a living breathing human who may be able to save the day if the captain is becoming overwhelmed in high workload situation or keeling over on short finals...

[Flintstone]

Life's A Clown (thanks G-AWZK).

That is why I really can't be bothered to write anything more to you Promise? Bet you can't resist.

unless you come up with something rational posted in a civilised manner. Hear that straining noise? It's the needle on my ironymeter bending against the stop.

[usedtofly]

Steady now ladies!..........or it will be handbags at dawn :E

:)

[usedtofly]

You know, flying is a bit like fishing..............put a nice juicy bait on the hook and just reel in the catch:)

LAB................you HAVE to reply to some of these posts surely?

[usedtofly]

Plinkton

TWO

[Flintstone]

If I were a non-pilot, two.

As it is though I could take over and wrestle with the controls when the aircraft plummets toward the ground after the (single) pilot suffers a brain aneurysm brought on by hypertension and overtightened anal sphincter*.



Italics courtesy of the Daily Mail.


*Warning. Some of these medical terms may not really exist.

[Bearing 123]

Fly Now Pay Later.
Sounds like you run a good operation and if its all single pilot ops, then you are setting a precedent that more entry level operators should sit up and take heed of.
Somebody posted on this thread that most air taxi operators work on min margins and I guess thats true as it's the entry level AOC and everybody thinks they can do it. The problem with this is that the crew or should I say the "only pilot", is normally the last link in the food chain and is put under so much pressure (especially as a newbie) to get the job done that he is made to feel that if he doesn't do it, than there are plenty of others that will.
When are operators going to realise that the pilot is a major player in their operation and that proper training and terms and conditions are a small price to pay for the returns they will get from a happy crew

PS Two everytime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Life's a Beech]

Plinkton

Take it as I answered, not some answer you make up. That is pure, misleading rhetoric.

I am in the real world. I don't know where you are that cost and weight might not exist, but that is irrelevant to me. You might like to visit reality some time, there is great flying to be had, and you might then come to understand this discussion.

G-AZWK

Not really a strong suggestion of imminent ban single-crew operations, except perhaps for ambulance flights (the market there would not really be affected, just taxes and insurance rates). In fact as I have already said most insist on a pilot's assistant anyway when live people are carried, so give or take line training there is likely to be little change. A radar altimeter would be an additional cost, but is not going to have a huge effect on the market.

From what I understand of EU-OPS there is no significant change to single-crew ops. I haven't heard anything from our FOI or anyone else in the industry either, so I very much doubt significant changes are in store.

[flynowpaylater]

Plinkton
What do you mean - discounting weather / cost / weight ?
Thats laughable. You clearly have no idea how this industry works. like any industry in the western world, cash is king. Weather is the same problem for single and multi crew operations, and the minima are raised for single crew operations, and the FTL is reduced as well. Therefore, by definition, the risk has been assessed, and measures put in place.

Cost = The difference between having the charter or not.
Weight = more fuel, better range, or more kilos.
More kilo's = more cash.
More cash = being able to offer pilots jobs.

Many pilots are not capable of flying single crew - lots want the security of having a Captain (who has probably done single crew in his career) to tell them what to do.

Most of the guys we've had pass through our doors are fast tracked into the LHS once in the airlines. That's because these guys are true commanders, and know not only how to fly, but how to operate a flight. This skill is identified by the airlines. 9/11 showed us all how easy it to "fly" a modern jet. To operate it in the commercial arena is something quite different.

And before you say it, I have worked with heavy jets, regional turbo props, 5t freighters, 3t freighters, down to Seneca's. I also have held a PPL since the 80's, with a twin rating. I have met and worked with thousands of pilots across the board, over a 20 year+ period. I've hired, fired, trained, and furthered careers. All this puts me in a position to comment .

What is your qualification / experience for comment?

[Pvt. Godfrey]

My sister Dolly says she's confused.

I hate it when she's upset so, just for clarity, are you saying you are a PPL, without a single pilot instrument rating and have worked with big aeroplanes?

I'm sure she's mistaken,

[Flintstone]

lots want the security of having a Captain (who has probably done single crew in his career) to tell them what to do.


So to summarise you are saying that "lots" of the pilots out there today flying multi-crew are there because they couldn't hack it in a single pilot operation.

I'll concede that there are a few but it would be a very low percentage. Speaking from personal experience I can tell you that single pilot ops is, in technical aviation jargon, a piece of piss. There's nothing particularly hard about it, 'normal' people can do it and anyone who is telling you otherwise is pulling your leg.

Like most disciplines it takes a bit of training and experience, that's all. In fact running your own ship is easier than having a crew to handle, manage, coerce, bribe call it what you will. I've seen far more people fail to operate well in a multi-crew environment than a single one.

Maybe some stick to single crew work to reduce the number of witnesses to their shortcomings?

As your 'friend' LAB is fond of saying, where's your substance? Mine comes from first hand experience on the ground, in the classroom, in the aircraft and down route. Yours appears to come from watching the crew pass through Ops on their way to work as you sit in your swivel chair glowing green with envy.


(Anticipating LAB's appearance any minute now..............)

[Life's a Beech]

Pvt Godfrey

There are many, many fine and vital people who work with aeroplanes who have no pilot's licence at all!

[plinkton]

flynowpaylater:

Plinkton
What do you mean - discounting weather / cost / weight ?
Thats laughable. You clearly have no idea how this industry works. like any industry in the western world, cash is king. Weather is the same problem for single and multi crew operations, and the minima are raised for single crew operations, and the FTL is reduced as well. Therefore, by definition, the risk has been assessed, and measures put in place.

Cost = The difference between having the charter or not.
Weight = more fuel, better range, or more kilos.
More kilo's = more cash.
More cash = being able to offer pilots jobs.

Many pilots are not capable of flying single crew - lots want the security of having a Captain (who has probably done single crew in his career) to tell them what to do.

Most of the guys we've had pass through our doors are fast tracked into the LHS once in the airlines. That's because these guys are true commanders, and know not only how to fly, but how to operate a flight. This skill is identified by the airlines. 9/11 showed us all how easy it to "fly" a modern jet. To operate it in the commercial arena is something quite different.

And before you say it, I have worked with heavy jets, regional turbo props, 5t freighters, 3t freighters, down to Seneca's. I also have held a PPL since the 80's, with a twin rating. I have met and worked with thousands of pilots across the board, over a 20 year+ period. I've hired, fired, trained, and furthered careers. All this puts me in a position to comment .

What is your qualification / experience for comment?


I'll take that as a one then.

Anyway, this thread isn't about who is most 'qualified' to comment. I'm happy to listen to what you have to say, regardless of your experience.

It is about 'The end of single-crew commercial flights'.

BTW, you sound like someone I may have spoken to once, from Southend.

Do you run a small outfit with a couple of piston twins and sometimes work with bigger aircraft? Good luck with the 737.

[Pvt. Godfrey]

My sister Dolly is still confused though,

When she was in the ATA following the unfortunate incident at Cheltenham Girls' 'penguins' wouldn't actually have much insight into their single pilot ferrying let alone demand a CV.

Fine people yes but they knew when they'd look daft to those who do it for real.

[flynowpaylater]

737's ? - Yeah I'd like some of those. It's just the cash requirement which is holding it back !

The point's I was making were :

a) You can't discount Money and weight from your survey. Thats like
saying, "discounting the goals scored, will Man U win the Premiership this
season?"

b) There is a general under lying inference on this thread that single crew
ops are dangerous, and therefore should be stopped. It's not dangerous,
if operated correctly, under the guidance of JAROPS1, EU ops etc...
Unfortunately, as pointed out in my previous post, this end of the
market attracts some business owners who don't understand the
importance of flight safety. I believe the CAA are working hard to
remedy this problem.

c) The point I made about pilots flying single crew getting fast tracked to
the LHS is based on experience. It is not about ability to fly any given
aircraft type, but more to do with attitude and the ability to make
decisions, both operational and commercial. This skill is developed well
when operating single crew.

Put simply, single crew is here to stay with the smaller aircraft, and will remain a great career building block for pilots. It will also become safer and safer, as it is across the aviation industry.

Would you sooner fly on a 737-300 that is operated and registered in Equatorial Guinea with 2 crew with their National Licence's, or a KingAir 200 operated and registered in the UK with single crew with his JAR ATPL? It's all down to training and the operating procedures and safety culture of the company that counts.

[Flintstone]

Would you sooner fly on a 737-300 that is operated and registered in Equatorial Guinea with 2 crew with their National Licence's, or a KingAir 200 operated and registered in the UK with single crew with his JAR ATPL?

Hardly a sweeping generalisation there at all:rolleyes: One of the best pilots I ever flew with cut his teeth in Africa flying 727s into bush strips with gravel runways which makes your KingAir pilot look a bit feeble by comparison. He's now flying an Airbus, as captain, for a european flag carrier. How's your KingAir pilot doing?

To answer your question. All things being equal I'd take the two-crew aircraft any day.

It's all down to training and the operating procedures and safety culture of the company that counts.

Exactly, and as your scenario is so flawed it makes no sense. We all know there are dodgy operators in this country too. Don't pay, pass off aircraft as their own, talk themselves up etc. I even heard of one who was so angry at a pilot who resigned from his company that he made a phone call to the new employer and tried to spike the pilot's career. What kind of low life would do that? Certainly not a respectable operator.

[flynowpaylater]

737's ? - Yeah I'd like some of those. It's just the cash requirement which is holding it back !

The point's I was making were :

a) You can't discount Money and weight from your survey. Thats like
saying, "discounting the goals scored, will Man U win the Premiership this
season?"

b) There is a general under lying inference on this thread that single crew
ops are dangerous, and therefore should be stopped. It's not dangerous,
if operated correctly, under the guidance of JAROPS1, EU ops etc...
Unfortunately, as pointed out in my previous post, this end of the
market attracts some business owners who don't understand the
importance of flight safety. I believe the CAA are working hard to
remedy this problem.

c) The point I made about pilots flying single crew getting fast tracked to
the LHS is based on experience. It is not about ability to fly any given
aircraft type, but more to do with attitude and the ability to make
decisions, both operational and commercial. This skill is developed well
when operating single crew.

Put simply, single crew is here to stay with the smaller aircraft, and will remain a great career building block for pilots. It will also become safer and safer, as it is across the aviation industry.

Would you sooner fly on a 737-300 that is operated and registered in Equatorial Guinea with 2 crew with their National Licence's, or a KingAir 200 operated and registered in the UK with single crew with his JAR ATPL? It's all down to training and the operating procedures and safety culture of the company that counts.

[G-AWZK]

There is a general under lying inference on this thread that single crew
ops are dangerous, and therefore should be stopped. It's not dangerous,
if operated correctly, under the guidance of JAROPS1, EU ops etc...
Unfortunately, as pointed out in my previous post, this end of the
market attracts some business owners who don't understand the
importance of flight safety. I believe the CAA are working hard to
remedy this problem.

The underlying inference is that two crew is safer than single crew. The two fatal accidents I highlighted earlier in this thread were both operated by respected and safe operators. In both cases a second pilot would have saved the AAIB alot of work.
The Loganair accident, in particular, seems to have awakened the CAA/JAA/EASA and they have been looking closely at the whole concept of single pilot ops, not just air ambulance operations.


Put simply, single crew is here to stay with the smaller aircraft, and will remain a great career building block for pilots.
How does this square with the new MPL then ? The whole ethos of the JAA/EASA ATPL licencing system is aimed at creating F/O's for T/Ps and jets. The BCPL-CPL-ATPL route has been dead for years.

[800m RVR]

Looks like there may be some substance to the threat to Single Pilot Air Ambulance flights, following text is from the AAIB progress report following the Islander crash:

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION - 2006-102
Considering the unique circumstances of air ambulance flights, the Civil aviation Authority, in conjunction with the Joint Aviation Authorities should review the circumstances in which a second pilot is required for public transport flights operating air ambulance services.

Response
Recommendations 2006-102 and 2006-103 were addressed to both the CAA and the JAA. The
CAA wrote to the JAA on 21 November 2006, confirming that they were ready to carry out the
required actions.
On 13 March 2007, the JAA responded that they were no longer in a position to undertake any work
on these topics and responsibility must now lie with EASA. On 28 March 2007, the CAA
representative briefed the Operations Sectorial Team on the issues involved in these recommendations: this team is overseen by EASA. In addition, the JAA agreed to write to EASA to
ask them how these recommendations should best be addressed.
The AAIB subsequently wrote to EASA requesting them to address these recommendations.
Status - Response Awaited - open

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Progress%20Report%202007.pdf

Depends how you interperate the CAA being ready to carry out the required actions though, seeing as the required action are to "review" the requirement to carry a second pilot.

[pilotbear]

I believe that an Air Ambulance operation should be operated with two crew. Why, because of the critical nature inherent in the specific job. There is, like it or not extra pressure to 'get in'. In the same way that the Police/Fire/Ambulance services will exceed the speed limit or pass through a red traffic signal. It is not legal though and the driver could be prosecuted.

I also believe that a 'normal' charter op should be able to operate single crew WITH WORKING AUTOPILOT and with the addition of a RAD ALT. The way that some operators get round this autopilot requirement astonishes me. Perhaps the 'someone who knows someone who knows someone in the Authority with a nice holiday home somewhere' issue should be looked into very closely.;) :E



Passengers should be given a second pilot option with a waiver to sign should they not opt for it.

Should cars have an extra driver in foggy conditions? High speed trains have an extra driver? ATC have a second controller monitoring them?

What if both pilots eat the fish for dinner?:)

There are some very odd personality issues at work on here and I wonder if you should really be pilots at all :E

[800m RVR]

I would generally agree with pilotbear except:

I dont really see the islanders and trilanders operating to and from the channel islands single pilot without an autopilot as a real problem in so much as adding an autopilot is unlikely to add a great amount of safety to such an operation, these guys are doing the same routes day in day out in pretty slow aircraft, yes they have to operate in some rather poor conditions (weather) but most light aircraft autopilots would not be much help in the approach phase anyway.
(Note: I have no financial motive for this opinion)

I would however agree that even these aircraft when not operated on such simple scheduled routes should be fitted with an autopilot.

Also with regard to a RAD-ALT, surely mandating the fitting of a GPS based TAWS system such as the Garmin 530 TAWS would be a relatively simple method of adding massively to the safety? A RAD-ALT would just give another guage to add to the scan and if it was mandated then it would invariably be retro-fitted somwhere that requires minimum work on the panel which would probably be way out of the scan and therfore of little use when needed on final approach on a dark night, at least the TAWS will shout at you when you are about to hit the ground...

[pilotbear]

The autopilot issue is really so that you can have something flying the aircraft while you are doing something else either normal or abnormal. If one of the aircraft just mentioned had an emergency then a diversion in very poor imc wx there is just too much going on. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is just good luck.
(Slightly off subject) As is the fact that on take off you can be using full rudder to counteract the xwind (same operator), what happens if you then get an engine failure at 10'??:(

Just good luck so far.

[800m RVR]

I would agree that adding a second crew member may be a good idea for the reasons you stated below and more but i'm still not convinced that an autopilot would bring a significant increase in safety bearing in mind;

The range these aircraft are likely to have in the event of a diversion is pretty limited so it is very likely that such a diversion airfield will be reasonably familliar and require minimum briefing.

They are simple aircraft so if there is a significant problem it is likely to be; Engine Failure (I suspect that the AFM would not permit use of the autopilot in this case,
Suction failure (autopilot will most likely take its attitude info from the AI so no use),
Electrical failure (No autopilot now),
Stuck flaps (not much to be done other than land)

As I said before in another theatre this argument would not stand up, I believe there is another islander operator at Fairoaks, I dont know if they have such and exemption.

I suspect that this is the type of argument used to justify these ops to the CAA.

This argument assumes that first you agree that single pilot ops are acceptable (safe), whilst I would argue against an autopilot giving a significant safety advantage I could not make the same argument against a second pilot, in the more critical scenarios above a second pilot would significantly reduce the workload and increase safety.

I guess that the big question is what level of risk (or percieved risk) is acceptable...

[pilotbear]

before we continue this particular topic I would be interested to know how much experience you have of singlepilot ifr ops in the typical crap winter wx we have here in the good old UK.
When you are a the end of your duty time on a really bad day, 10 mins break with the autopilot on is a significant safety increase.
Often the only time you see anything is on take off roll and touchdown, therefore the workload is constant just keeping the wings level:ok:let alone intercepting and maintaining track/hdg/level/TSI navaids/calculating ROD, TOD /ATC/pax talking when they shouldn't (which is always)....often you have a nosy one sitting next to you/ trying to maintain track on a NDB approach with a 30kt wind across it watching the ice slowly form behind the boots:eek:

[imustbemad]

South Coast
A two pilot operation is always better if the other pilot happens to be your girlfriend isn't it? oh and of course the safety/redundancy thing...

[ChristiaanJ]

Before we continue this particular topic I would be interested to know how much experience you have of singlepilot ifr ops in the typical crap winter wx we have here in the good old UK.
When you are a the end of your duty time on a really bad day, 10 mins break with the autopilot on is a significant safety increase.
I couldn't agree more.
Many moons ago, at the firm I worked at, we obtained single-pilot IFR certification for a helicopter, not even with an autopilot but a basic autostab with an integrator for 3-axis attitude hold.
Attitude drifted a degree or so per minute, so you corrected every couple of minutes with a blip on the beep trim.
The system was duplex fail-passive.

I did some of the flight test support for the certification flying.
Hardovers on the simplex variant of the system were 'quite' spectacular.... like 45° pitch-down or 60° roll in about 2 seconds (before recovery).
Hardovers on the duplex system were non-events.
I'd inject a full pitch-down hardover fault.... the red light would come on and .... nothing. Maybe a couple of degrees pitch up.

Exactly like you said, it relieved you of the basic flying task, leaving your mind and hands free to deal with nav, radio, maps, fuel etc. and maybe even to talk to the pax.

As to crap winter wx.... Scotland and the North Sea crap enough?

[Flintstone]

A two pilot operation is always better if the other pilot happens to be your girlfriend isn't it?

Harsh, but fair :E


As to crap winter wx.... Scotland and the North Sea crap enough?

Ooh, ooh, ooh! I know this game! Can I play too? <Waves own willy in the air. Narrowly avoids wrapping it around own neck and choking>:}

[800m RVR]

before we continue this particular topic I would be interested to know how much experience you have of singlepilot ifr ops in the typical crap winter wx we have here in the good old UK.

Pilotbear

>1400 hrs single pilot IFR covering most of Europe in various types of aircraft, plenty of which was in crap winter wx here in the UK both with and without autopilot & yes I have flown the Islander and the Trilander although not for many hours.

So do I pass the selection, am I qualified to enter this discussion??

[ChristiaanJ]

Flintstone,
What's bitten you? Why the baseless vulgarity?
I was simply adding to pilotbear's remark that an autopilot, even the simplest one, is a substantial addition to safety, for the reasons he stated.

We did the flight testing out of Yarmouth, not really crap weather, just wet.
Re Scotland and the North Sea, I was referring to the people who actually operated the aircraft afterwards under conditions that I would not have liked to fly in.

Oh, and so far, I haven't seen your qualifications for even posting here.

[south coast]

I must be mad...thanks for reminding me of those wonderful times.:rolleyes:

Pair of milkers on display in the cruise, yep, good crm!

[pilotbear]

800 - the reason i ask is that there are many on here who have opinions on situations they have never encountered and like to tell you how you should do your job. This I am sure you will have encountered and I really cannot be arsed with those know-it-alls getting in the way of an intelligent debate.
It is sometimes quite hard to cut through the egotistical crap.:ok:

Flintstone - :D

[Flintstone]

Christiaan, It must be awful. I mean, just imagine. Being born without a sense of humour. You have my utmost sympathy. I suppose it could be worse though. To paraphrase Stevie Wonder, you could have been born French.;)



Oh, and so far, I haven't seen your qualifications for even posting here. I need qualifications to be here? Really? Nobody told me that when I joined all those years ago, I must have slipped through the net.

Please don't tell them I'm a lowly wannabee whose aviation experience is confined to my mock-up cockpit in the spare bedroom, MS2000 and hanging around the airport perimeter collecting aircraft registrations. Please don't. Otherwise 'they' might make me leave.

Seriously Christiaan. When you get up out of your seat is the cushion left in a puckered up starfish pattern? Lighten up, you'll live longer :rolleyes:

[ChristiaanJ]

Flintstone,
With a willy your size, better be careful around helicopters. Choppers aren't called that for nothing....

... my mock-up cockpit in the spare bedroom... Ah...
Mine was a Gloster Meteor one in the attic. Mid-fifties. But I did progress beyond that.
So maybe you will too, one day. All hope's not yet lost.

[Flintstone]

Thanks Christiaan, I'm touched. It was by Father McGinty in the vestry but he let me off prayers afterward.

[ChristiaanJ]

... he let me off prayers afterward... Then better pray now nobody finds out you have French ancestors, or even Dutch ones....

[Flintstone]

Are you kidding? If I go back just two generations I find English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish ancestors and considering every horny bugger with a boat has been pitching up on these shores for the last few thousand years, stealing the sheep and tupping the womenfolk ANYTHING could be lurking up the family tree.

It would be fairly embarassing to find any Dutch ancestors although come to think of it orange is my favourite colour. :uhoh:

[twochai]

Of all the potential hazards in aviation, single pilot operation of a small, simple fixed gear aircraft on short stages of under one hour, rates at the very bottom of the list. A functioning autopilot would be helpful in the a/c, but dual controls and a driver's assistant in the taxi to the airport would make a more substantive contribution to public safety IMHO!

[Expressflight]

Just to get back on topic - put the handbags away you two - we lost an aeroplane at BRU in the 1980s when the single pilot descended below DH and into the ground well short of the airfield.

That surely would not have happened on a two-crew aeroplane.

Single crew = acceptably safe in the real world.
Two crew = safer.
No doubt about that in my mind.

[Flintstone]

Don't worry Expressflight, we're just having fun which I think is still allowed round these parts. Nobody sems to be biting though, maybe we should insult a few more nationalities? ;)

Agree with your comments on two-crew, how could I not? I'm afraid I can't agree with twochai though. If he's speaking from personal experience then single pilot ops must be a whole lot different in his part of the world. I can think of few things more unsafe than single crew, short flights in busy (UK) airspace.

[pilotbear]

yes, the mysterious third lane that egyptian taxi drivers manage to find on a two lane (or one lane) road to and from the airport:eek:

[twochai]

The discussion was mainly about small, remote communities like Alderney (or Tiree, Benbecula, the BC coastal communities, etc., etc.) . They depend upon air service to an extent that demands economically viable solutions. Are two crew safer? Of course they are. So would a full CAT 3 ILS at St. Mary's help with the fog problems in the Scillies.

All I'm suggesting is that a modicum of common sense and perspective be applied, rather than a blanket one-size-fits-all solution that would make basic air service an unaffordable luxury.

[Flintstone]

twochai.

I was under the impression this was about single pilot ops in general with the Islanders/Trislanders thrown in as one of the examples. The title of the thread certainly doesn't specify certain classes of airspace only.

[flynowpaylater]

"All I'm suggesting is that a modicum of common sense and perspective be applied,"

not much chance of that me thinks.

The bottom line is, the CAA,JAA,EUOPS,FAA,and every other aviation authority across the globe deem single crew safe enough. Aircraft manufacturers also produce VLJ aircraft, which are designed for single crew ops (if flown on corporate).

Most helicopters are single crew, and a lot more difficult to fly.

[eyeinthesky]

QUOTE:
Often the only time you see anything is on take off roll and touchdown,
UNQUOTE

In which case, the availability and use or not of an autopilot is the least of your legal concerns (Minimum approach RVR 800m for SPO under JAR).:ooh:

[keepin it in trim]

sp ifr in a helicopter requires a functioning autopilot, and my goodness you need it when you do not have an FO, even in what the CAA class as a simple light twin (EC 135- light it may be, simple...mmmm), not sure if the exemption for the BO 105 for this has expired yet.

[Flintstone]

All I'm suggesting is that a modicum of common sense and perspective be applied

not much chance of that me thinks..................Most helicopters are single crew, and a lot more difficult to fly.

Apparently so. Which is why.................sp ifr in a helicopter requires a functioning autopilot,


Aaah, irony.;)

[ChristiaanJ]

sp ifr in a helicopter requires a functioning autopilotMaybe it does now.
In my days the passive-fail three-axis attitude hold system I described met the CAA requirements.

...and my goodness you need it when you do not have an FO, even in what the CAA class as a simple light twin (EC 135- light it may be, simple...mmmm)Totally agree.
But even something far simpler than a full three or four axis autopilot, such as the system I was talking about, already makes a vast difference.
(Yes we did a full autopilot too...)

not sure if the exemption for the BO 105 for this has expired yetDon't know about that. Like to elucidate?

CJ

[pilotbear]

Eye in the sky - What exactly is the relevance of that message? I was pointing out that the workload can be constant from the minute you start....and the vis could actually be as little as 500m if observed, which is only 5/800m contact with the ground when you are on the ground..:ugh:

Flintstone - where do these people come from?:)

[G-AWZK]

Interesting that VLJ's have had a mention. By coincidence I was having a conversation with a friend at EASA about this very subject and crewing requirements.

JAR-OPS 1 requires all commercial air transport operations in turbo-jet aeroplanes at night or under instrument flight rules (IFR) to have two pilots. As VLJs will be certificated as single pilot aeroplanes we can expect the manufacturers to have this requirement amended; it is felt that a very strong safety case, would have to be made before there are any changes in this requirement. Corporate operators may well dictate that all flights carrying company passengers must be crewed by two type rated pilots.

Then we have the insurance companies that will only insure turbo-jet aeroplanes when flown with two rated pilots there are a few companies that will accept single pilot operations but with a much higher premium. This will likely be the incentive to always fly with two type rated pilots. The point being that when flying VLJs with two pilots, both must be type rated. Taking an inexperienced pilot as a second pilot to meet any regulatory requirements would only increase the workload of the captain as he would have monitor all actions by the second pilot as well as dealing with his own duties. It makes sense then that where two pilot operations are required both pilots must be type rated.

Going back to piston ops, the same conversation leads me to believe that EASA are looking at the issues raised by the CAA following the Loganair accident, and have extended discussions beyond ambulance flights. It is not unusual for JAA/EASA regulations to come up with solutions that are akin to sledgehammers to crack nuts. My understanding is that in one meeting the discussions considered the suggestion that all commercial transport ops should use only turbine aircraft, the belief being that it would have a minimal impact on commercial operations...

[flynowpaylater]

Flintstone - The auto pilot rule is not only applicable to Helicopters, but fixed wing as well.

If the A/P doesn't work, then you must 2 crew the flight. With 2 OPC'd pilots.

As I said - not much chance of that (common sense) me thinks.

Irony is..........that the first milestone in a pilot's career is going solo !

[Flintstone]

Flintstone - The auto pilot rule is not only applicable to Helicopters, but fixed wing as well.

If the A/P doesn't work, then you must 2 crew the flight. With 2 OPC'd pilots.
Thanks for that. Glad to see the rules haven't changed since my single pilot IFR days.

Is this thread going anywhere any more?

[flynowpaylater]

Probably not going anywhere anymore.

We all have our opinions and judgements based upon our own experiences.

[Tinstaafl]

Does that mean I've missed my turn at willy waving? :ooh:

[Flintstone]

Tinstaafl is a man? :eek:

[Tinstaafl]

Flinty, have you been thinking naughty thoughts inappropriately? :uhoh: