why 2 pilots for a single pilot certified A/C

[usakalamba]

Small single engine turbofan aircrafts such as Cirrus SF50, maverick solo jet, Diamond D Jet, Stratos aircraft, etc are now entering the market. Some of these aircraft such as Stratos aircraft have been certified for single pilot operation. Moreover, cessna citation and beechcraft aircraft can be flown by single pilots. However, all of these aircrafts which is certified for single pilot operation has the provision of accomodating two pilots at the front…Is this compulsory due to regulations…why dont they remove one pilot and just make the aircraft to accomodate only one pilot so that the front area decreases and the aerodynamic advantages can be gained to some extent besides they are anyway being certified for single pilot operation…

[Welle]

imho:
single pilot ops is ok for private operations....
as far as i know authorites as for 2 pilots at commercial ops with these aircrafts... (like for C525..)

rgds
welle

[No RYR for me]

As long as accident reports still show that a majority of incidents are due to pilot error and incapacitation you will see two man cockpits... It is a statistical game really with a bit of emotion thrown in too...

If you really want to ask the right question it would be why a pilot at all.... Give us a decade or so and this will be the discussion with the advance of the UAV's...

[Pace]

I could well see a European requirement for all jets to be required to be flown by a crew in the not very distant future!
With RVSM airspace and increased congestion travelling at the speeds of a jet can put a high workload on a single pilot !
Accident rates increase with Single pilot ops so it's on the cards for crew jet operations!
On top of that many owners are not comfortable with one heart flying the aircraft.

Pace

[MungoP]

The manufacturer is only one part of the equation.. FAA requires 2 pilots when carrying more than 9 pax on commercial ops.

[Above The Clouds]

2 Engines, 2 Comms, 2 FMS's duplicated other systems all increasing safety for the passengers.

1 heart beat up front during single pilot ops, thats why, all insurance company generated.

[usakalamba]

Thank you for all of your replies....I am doing my MSc thesis which is a conceptual design of a business jet aircraft and I am specifically focusing into very light jets with a passenger capability of 4-5 passengers, range of not more than 1500 nm, weight not more than 10000 pounds. Similar to Diamond D-Jet, Cirrus SF50 type of aircraft (Far 23, CS-23 requirement). I am currently doing the market analysis and preparing the specifications. My supervisor wants specifically just a single pilot...I just wanted to know if there were any regulations...seems like removing the co-pilot from the cockpit is possible from all of your answers but a big gamble in terms of selling the aircraft...Here is my conclusions for single pilot operations

advantages
Low cost of not hiring the co-pilot
Small amount of drag decrease in the front section by removing the seat

Disadvantages
operational inflexibility (specially landing at bigger airports, IFR flying)
High insurance cost
High probability of accidents
Cannot train the pilot in the same aircraft

I guess this is why even though the aircraft is certified for a single pilot operation they don't remove the co-pilot seat to allow for flexibility for the operator and since the market for this type of aircraft is still being experimented manufacturers don't want to take a gamble. The disadvantages seems to outweigh the advantages. What are your thoughts did I miss any other possible advantages...

[Trim Stab]

Even simulator based TRs require that the pilot then undertakes a few circuits with an examiner on board. I can't see many examiner being happy to sit in the back of a single-pilot machine where they have absolutely no chance of intervening.

One small advantage you miss is less weight.

[gaunty]

There is also the very real probability that sooner than later single pilot operation in the airline flight levels or routes will be proscribed.

Having said that while you are at it designing the aircraft and systems from scratch to be autonomous and capable of landing itself or being landed might be a gamechanger.

It is already technically possible and has been demonstrated.

As the man who designed the first automatic thingy said "it's computerised", nothing can go wrong....go wrong...go wrong...:uhoh: insert blue screen of death here.:eek:

[Tinstaafl]

The aircraft might be approved for SP operation, but regulations often require 2 pilots for public transport ie paying pax. There can be exceptions to the rule though eg autopilot instead of co-pilot but that depends on meeting specific criteria for the air carrier.

[flynowpaylater]

why dont they remove one pilot and just make the aircraft to accomodate only one pilot so that the front area decreases and the aerodynamic advantages can be gained to some extent besides they are anyway being certified for single pilot operation…


Although it would never happen, you have to admire the simplicity of this question. It does seem to have some logic behind it on the face of it. If only one pilot, then you need only one seat. Seems to make sense. It worked on the Dragon Rapide.

SP ops, especially with rather fast turbine engined aircraft, carrying pax, flying in busy european airspace is probably a decreasing business anyway, certainly on CAT. Whether it has 1 or 2 engines is largely irrelevant from that point of view.

[tommoutrie]

bring back the BD10! point to point charter for the businessman in a hurry

[tommoutrie]

Its lucky that changing legislation in aviation is glacial. I can certainly see single pilot ops returning to civilian aviation in a demonstrably and statistically safe way. All you need is an aircraft which is essentially a UAV which also carries a pilot. That way you have the redundancy of a two pilot operation but you have statistical redundancy should the UAV fail. And how hard would it really be to convince the public? I'd imagine it would take cheaper fares and about a week. So the original question is very sensible - current legislation makes it an unworkable suggestion but in the future? who knows..

[Cpt_Schmerzfrei]

Attempts to eliminate the second pilot are almost as old as aviation itself. Have you had a look at the cockpit of the Mitsubishi Diamond? It was initially conceived as a single pilot aircraft - but you just to take a look at the cockpit to realize that this would never have worked.So much for the engineers' ambitions...

I don't understand why you would try that in the first place. Hiring and maintaining a second pilot will be cheaper than installing the hardware required for any technical solution, be it remote controls or sophisticated autopilots. That's why I don't see the second pilot go anytime soon.

[Mach Tuck]

As well as all the previous responses, it is also a matter of economics for the manufacturer. It is the owner's/operator's perogative how may pilots he puts in the front of his SP aircraft. Take that choice away and the manufacturer won't sell as many airframes.

MT

[tommoutrie]

and I completely agree. Two pilots, great idea, lets stick with it.

But I suspect my lifetime will see a safety case for removing a pilot. The majority of accidents are down to pilot error, CRM, loss of situational awareness etc. Technology is moving forward at an extraordinary rate in the UAV world - how long is it going to take the tech to overtake a squidgy old grey haired git like me?

not long..

[Cpt_Schmerzfrei]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. Think back to the early 90ies when Airbus management claimed that flying an A320 was so easy that even their executives' secretaries could do it easily. They were (and still are!) proven wrong. "Pilot error" and loss of situational awareness are in no small part induced by new technology. Trying to design the human element out of the cockpit will not get you less "human error" and related accidents, but more.

UAVs suffered a tremendous accident rate in the beginning, btw. One source (http://www.resilientcognitivesolutions.com/wordpress/?p=9) speaks of an accident rate that is eight times higher than for conventional aircraft.

[tommoutrie]

yeah hope so. Which will come first - the driverless car or the single pilot airliner? I'm definitely not a fan of the idea because its nice sitting up the front drinking a coffee and looking out of the window and chatting to yer mate about clouds but its not difficult to see the situation where automation is demonstrably safer than two pilots.

ah well, I'll be growing courgettes by then

[1Bingo]

Look at it from the owner's perspective. It's his/her pink derriere in the back and he/she would probably feel more secure in preserving said component with two aircrew versus one.

There is enough going on in the aviation world that two craniums far gezump one ego.

Bingo

[Sillypeoples]

OP - As a single pilot 'enthusiest' with the waiver in 6 different Citations....I have pondered a number for design 'upgrades'....folding wings...more aerodynamic cockpit...etc..

The reality is that manufacturers are motivated to make money...and do this by selling planes to willing buyers...and willing buyers currently are not hiring and PAYING ex military and high time civilian pilots but generally chief pilot culled kids, marshmellows, over the hill hacks, ect...thus....they need docile, slow, stupidly overbuilt, way to many avionics to hand hold and keep the idiot pilots(that means two) out of trouble.

The point being...YES....I have considered a design with one pilot in front and maybe a rear seater.....maybe someone like the SR71 that would haul ass, with a pay load of say 8 people in the hold, two pilots up front in tandem, getting the drag cross section way down.

But it won't happen as long as the people who buy plane currently hire from the bottom of the resume pile rather then the top..

Hence why the planes are so slow, have so much drag, and have so much gear to tell the pilots where they are. It's sad..

Anyway...build that plane, I will fly it.

[DownIn3Green]

I agree with Bingo...as a former Capt on a VIP jet, my owner would never fly with just one pilot...and as alluded to previously, our insurance wouldn't allow it...

[Pace]

On these very small jets ie the 4 to five seaters where one pilot is envisaged a big seller would be the fitting of a chute system as with the Cirrus.
I could see a time when single pilot operations in RVSM will be banned so these tiny owner flown jets would have to operate sub RVSM airspace.
If you are indeed looking at a new design the chute would be your best addition.
It has been very reliable in the Cirrus although a different design would be needed for higher speed deployment and heavier aircraft.
There will always be a passenger concern with one pilot as with one engine and the chute would add a get out of prison card in the marketing of a single pilot very light jet.
The Eclipse is one aircraft which is turning out to be a good aircraft after its chequered start albeit no chute but two pilot capability!
You mentioned 1500 nm range that would be hard to achieve as most light jets have a weight/range problem!
Going back the small personal jet has always been a dream from the days of the four seater Paris jet to the modern personal tandem fighter lookalike jet.
With a very effective chute you may have a winner.
No body will get into a pilot less jet as technology is not that reliable.

Pace

[tommoutrie]

Google Image Result for http://rob.com/pix/var/albums/oops/BD10/bd10_1.jpg%3Fm%3D1289693966 (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=bede+10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1440&bih=809&tbm=isch&tbnid=D1em9YVHEpo_fM:&imgrefurl=http://rob.com/pix/photos/3382&docid=TJzbVSdx2xxqpM&imgurl=http://rob.com/pix/var/albums/oops/BD10/bd10_1.jpg%253Fm%253D1289693966&w=945&h=873&ei=qzuvUL7SMcHJtAaspIHYCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=419&vpy=142&dur=136&hovh=216&hovw=234&tx=147&ty=132&sig=107126996100542895493&page=1&tbnh=142&tbnw=136&start=0&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:91)

Bede 10.. its the way to go..

Out of interest, why do you see a time that single pilot aircraft will be banned from RVSM airspace? I've flown single pilot below, in, and above the RVSM and I don't really see why it would be a problem. The most difficult bit in a single pilot jet is trying to navigate whilst taxiing around an unfamiliar large airport - I really think thats a four eyes job! Being low to the ground its more difficult to see marker boards, see whats painted on the concrete etc. There is a bit of an issue with some SP jets in RVSM in that they are typically a bit slow - the mustang for instance can clog things up on occasion - but in the higher powered CJ's I would usually get above FL380 as quickly as possible and above the RVSM where I could for fuel burn and often to avoid headwinds so I'm not sure how much of a problem they really are. Thats just an opinion though - I have no idea how many controllers I've annoyed by creeping along at 0.72 in the past!

[Pace]

Nice business tool the Bede!!! A few missiles on the front and you could eliminate your business competitors enroute to clinching a deal :)

Congestion in European airspace is a major problem. The regulators I am sure will cite the heavy workload and increased accident statistics of single pilot jet operations as a reason to eliminate them from RVSM airspace where most jets need to be.

I may have it wrong but knowing EASA????
The latest accelerate/stop distances is one example of EASA making us operate like AN AOC Eliminating us from 900 airports in Europe.
It may be a sensible move but will have a big impact on the viability of these smaller airports.
I was in Weston Dublin with the Citation a few days ago and chatting to the management they are concerned that they only have a small section of their huge runway licensed.
The ridiculous situation at Weston would be that jets could be stopped from operating there :ugh: Even though there is enough Tarmac to land a 747.

Single pilot ops I am sure will be another target and RVSM airspace a neat hook to hang it on!
It is a simple move to add to RVSM airspace requirements the need to have two licensed crew in the aircraft.

Pace

[tommoutrie]

one day they will do the sensible thing and ban all forms of aviation completely. That way there would be no accidents at all.

I tried to find out once where the land within 60% for turboprop and 70% for turbofan rules came from. Its impossible to find any statistical proof at all that those figures are the magic crossover between an increased safety margin with respect to the manufacturers numbers and actually having airports to land at. Nobody at Hoofdorp knew the answer when I was on a postholder course. The EASA regulations will have a very significant commercial impact on lots of small airfields and reduces the attraction of using a business jet. I see it degrading pilot skills - who cares about landing accurately and approaching at the correct speed if you've got all that tarmac to play with - and mathematically it doesn't make sense. A linear scalar factor is wrong. The energy you need to dissipate varies with the square of the speed so safety factors should vary as the square of the ref speed. Penalising aircraft like Mustangs and CJ's far more than challengers and lots of airliners just doesnt make sense.

Also, why is it 60 for turboprops and 70 for jets? You can't account for reverse or beta so whats going on? Its a really crude attempt to account for the above - factors should scale with speed and turboprops on average approach slower.

wouldn't it be nice if pilots and aerodynamacists wrote the rules instead of lawyers..

[Pace]

Tom

As stated the management at Weston are concerned. The stupid thing is their licensed piece of runway sits on a huge section of runway yet because of planning issues they cannot use it.

The other major point is its not just the 900 airfields which will suffer badly.
One of the people I fly for uses airfields near his customer bases which are not reachable without a private jet or turboprop.

His missions would be impossible using scheduled airline so everyone suffers Airports and local businesses alike.

For what is there any evidence that private jets are crashing off the end of runways anymore than AOC ops?

I wish EASA would concentrate on plugging demonstrable safety holes rather than imaginary ones and stop using safety as a protectionism tool.

Pace

[Phenom 300]

Although my name implies otherwise, I am not flying a Phenom 300. So I depend on advice from the more knowledgeable! ;)

How many airports in Europe would be available for a light jet operating under private ops vs. commercial ops? Talking about light jets I'm thinking about Phenoms and CJs, and let's make that MLW, ISA, SL.

A big Fractional Ownership Provider claims to have access to almost 900 airports in Europe. And they obviously have to comply with EU-OPS over here...

[Sillypeoples]

So many lies....

So how many airliners are sitting up with me at FL450? Yeah I didn't think so..so who's in who's way down in the 30s?

The reality is the problem with the Phenoms and Mustangs is that they are marketed at the biz guy entry jet owner...docile, slow, no range.....

The idea of the biz owner pilot, a plane in every driveway is noble, but unrealistic...

What they need is to start building some fast jets for some of us to get up to FL60 and go Mach 2. Maybe we could re label the airspace 'no pussies airspace' or 'real pilot airspace' or 'didn't pad my logbook and kiss a chief pilot's butt airspace'....whatever.....

At this point I am kinda sick of sitting in planes all day that do .80 because the FAA won't certify a plane that is too unforgiving for you guys to fly...

But all that said...seriously....what is the argument against single pilot? You need someone to throw the gear up for you? Hold the checklist?

I mean seriously...the more some of you talk you would think you guys are right up against it when you fly that the right seater is there to save the day every time you go up.

[fatmanmedia]

My view on this subject is simple, why the h$ll not have a biz jet that can fly in the FL500 to Fl600 at M0.95 flown by a single pilot, there is nothing technically to stop this from happening, a modern flight deck can handle 99% of the workload all the pilot has to do is monitor the systems and drink their coffee.



In two person crewed aircraft the co-pilots work can be handled by a dedicated computer that can act as a co-pilot and work independently from the rest of the flight deck, so when the PIC calls for “gear up” the co-pilot computer can bring the gear up and verbally indicated when the gear is up.



This is one example of where a computer co-pilot can reduce the workload for the PIC and make flying a larger aircraft as easy as flying a Cub.


I blame the regulators for not opening up the regulations and allowing more radical development in aircraft today.


I trust the technology to help me fly better, it's just a pity that the regulators don't.


Fats

[Pace]

Fatmanmedia

How would you feel loading your family onto The Easyjet/RyanAir A320/737 with one grey haired pilot in the front?

Only last week a pilot was taken ill and a rated pilot/passenger assisted.

Top that concern with the fact that the accident rates increase dramatically in single pilot operated jets and there is a genuine concern about how quickly the workload can increase in a high speed jet in our congested airspace and airports.

If the Boss can afford an expensive jet with two of everything he can afford a crew which makes for more work for all of us and better safety for all.

My I phone crashed yesterday you trust computers ??? :ugh:

Pace

[500 above]

My view on this subject is simple, why the h$ll not have a biz jet that can fly in the FL500 to Fl600 at M0.95 flown by a single pilot, there is nothing technically to stop this from happening, a modern flight deck can handle 99% of the workload all the pilot has to do is monitor the systems and drink their coffee.

How on earth are you going to drink coffee at FL600 single pilot, presumably with a mask on? A rapid D at that alt would spoil your day for sure. Who would get up out of the hot seats and make the coffee for you? Do you have shares in Thermos? Maybe we could have crew meals a la U2 pilots, through a straw. I agree with Pace.

[fatmanmedia]

i remember drinking a nice coffee sitting in first class on concorde while cruising at M2.00 @ Fl600 in a suit and that was with 1960's technology. We are in 2012 and the skills and equipment is there for a biz jet (not a commercial airliner) to be built that can travel at M2.00 or greater at FL600 with a passenger capacity of say 10 with a single pilot up front with the appropriate flight deck and computer back up for safe reliable flying.

The days of having 2 overpaid bus drivers up front is over, technology will lead the way and reduce the work load for a single pilot, if a fighter jet like a F22 or eurofighter can operate with one pilot a combat situation with dealing with ACM and laying down ordinance then why cant there be a biz jet operating in a straight line at a altitude where there is a low number of conflicting aircraft at a high speed.

I'm not suprised that the iphone crashed, it's rubbish, the computer that i'm typing this on has been running for over 4 years with no crashes and only having to reboot for updates, so the argument against computers assisting would have been valid in the days of windows 95-vista, but a modern pc running a linux derived OS with good software can run for years and with the size of systems now it's possible to have 2 systems running in space smaller than a hard back book so there is no reason for not having a back up in case of hardware failure.

On the issue of having one gray haired old timer up front on a commercial aircraft the solution is simple, mandatory retirement at 50, keep the flight deck crew young and fit and the problem goes away. It's better to utilise the old timers as trainers and in other non essential roles.

Fats

[aerobat77]

i remember drinking a nice coffee sitting in first class on concorde while cruising at M2.00 @ Fl600 in a suit and that was with 1960's technology

you claim to be 32- so in the 60/70,s you sat there in liquid consistency between the legs of your father .

or do you mean the later concorde flights being yourself a kid/ teenie?

[Fullagas]

Lol, good catch.

For those who think the 'extra, overpaid' crew is unneeded, you can save $. Travel by bus, train or boat as needed. And nag them about their wasteful, costly crew. :hmm:

[500 above]

i remember drinking a nice coffee sitting in first class on concorde while cruising at M2.00 @ Fl600

Indeed. That was with two pilots and a flight engineer up front. Somewhat a safety barrier, don't you agree? Oh, Concorde was only one class, no need to drop the 'first class' part in.

[Sillypeoples]

No reason to conjure up reasons for a fight..

A single pilot jet at 55k poses zip issue to for the airliner down in the 30s.

That said, if everyone started flying planes and people started dropping dead in the aircraft...is that any worse then the hundreds of thousands of auto deaths every year?

Consider that one jet augering in once in a while is certainly no more of an issue then airliner after airliner slamming into a hill every year not because of incapacitation but gross incompetence.

So if you aren't going to bitch about the kids they are stuffing in the airline seats, then don't bitch about the occasional pilot that can fly his own jet in airspace you generally don't fly in. Fair is fair.

[500 above]

I feel for the poor sod who will have to spend most of his time on oxygen at those levels, single pilot. If the boss can afford a kerosine burner flying at FL450+, I'm sure his life insurance company would want two rated drivers in the machine to insure him.

[Sillypeoples]

Well some supersonic designs are on the table and certainly the pilots aren't going to be sucking on o2 for 6 hours...I suspect the cockpit will be it's own pressure vessel inside of another vessel......

Also hear of eliminating windows, going to all cameras...ending the window blow out/bird strike issue.

Either that or everyone is wearing suits like in the U2....

But as was said this was adressed for the guys flying the Concord.

[500 above]

I like many others here, believe that we all have more of a fighting chance at those altitudes with two crew up front. The other logic is the pax oxy systems. From FL500/600 as was mentioned, they (with present technology pax systems) would end up as vegetables after suffering a rapid decompression, as I keep hearing in FSI recurrents. "The masks are there to please the customers..." Views?

[Pace]

Fatmanmedia

Even in the tried and tested A320 they spend half their time resetting circuit breakers because of issues.
How much will all this High tech computer systems cost to make the aircraft single pilot?
What will the annual maintenance bills be keeping everything running ?
Far far more than a rated FO

Pace

[500 above]

I mean seriously...the more some of you talk you would think you guys are right up against it when you fly that the right seater is there to save the day every time you go up.

One word - incapacitation.

Czech pilot dies during flight; plane lands safely | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/15/czech-pilot-dies-in-flight-plane-lands-safely/)

60-year-old Continental pilot dies in flight - Travel - News | NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31426550/ns/travel-news/t/-year-old-continental-pilot-dies-flight/#.ULMoAHwayK0)

Qatar Airways pilot who died during flight was Indian | GulfNews.com (http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-airways-pilot-who-died-during-flight-was-indian-1.696419)

Pilot dies of heart attack mid-flight - Yahoo!7 News (http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/12683517/pilot-dies-of-heart-attack-mid-flight/)

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Manchester | Co-pilot dies during plane flight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7262380.stm)

Quite a few poor souls under 50 in that mix.

[His dudeness]

I'm not suprised that the iphone crashed, it's rubbish, the computer that i'm typing this on has been running for over 4 years with no crashes and only having to reboot for updates, so the argument against computers assisting would have been valid in the days of windows 95-vista, but a modern pc running a linux derived OS with good software can run for years and with the size of systems now it's possible to have 2 systems running in space smaller than a hard back book so there is no reason for not having a back up in case of hardware failure.

Wellwellwell, at least Honeywell have not figured out to make an avionic suite that does everything they advertised it would on a 2007 Sovereign.
The real issue here seems to be software.
But I´m sure Fatmanmedia LLC. could develop that way better than that small local radio shop Honeywell.

[fatmanmedia]

One word - incapacitation.

Czech pilot dies during flight; plane lands safely | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/15/czech-pilot-dies-in-flight-plane-lands-safely/)

60-year-old Continental pilot dies in flight - Travel - News | NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31426550/ns/travel-news/t/-year-old-continental-pilot-dies-flight/#.ULMoAHwayK0)

Qatar Airways pilot who died during flight was Indian | GulfNews.com (http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-airways-pilot-who-died-during-flight-was-indian-1.696419)

Pilot dies of heart attack mid-flight - Yahoo!7 News (http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/12683517/pilot-dies-of-heart-attack-mid-flight/)

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Manchester | Co-pilot dies during plane flight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7262380.stm)

Quite a few poor souls under 50 in that mix.

simple solution to that is to design the pilot out of the cockpit, and make it completely automated or controlled from the ground.

fats

[500 above]

This is a Bizjet forum. The bosses/pax generally like to see a couple of pilots. Anyway, they'd have to carry their own bags and learn how to pack a hold pretty good! It'll never happen. Btw, did you hear about the recent UAV crash? Piloting aircraft from the ground would not alleviate crashing.

[500 above]

Are you not advocating two crew f/d's here?

Sillypeoples

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 82
So if human factors is the big reason why CRM was implemented...why not put two ten thousand hour pilots in the cockpit? Certainly no high time FO is going to let the idiot in the left seat fly him into a mountain.

Oh, that's right...there is a pilot shortage....


From here

http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/480716-breath-fresh-air-last-one-pilots-view-crm-3.html#post7179203

Strange, after this comment here:

That said, if everyone started flying planes and people started dropping dead in the aircraft...is that any worse then the hundreds of thousands of auto deaths every year?

[Pace]

Fatmanmedia

You saw the film Aeroplane ? A good example of how unreliable the autopilot is!
The one in that film deflated and could only reinflate when a pretty stewardess blew it up again.
Instead of a first officer you would have to employ a pretty stewardess to get things working :ok:
Don't trust technology it has a habit of not working when you need it

Pace

[aerobat77]

when a pretty stewardess blew it up again

and now the big question : is this or the flying by itself MORE dream catcher for the most here ? :E

nice posting pace !