Airbus + Cathay working on Single Pilot during Cruise with A350 [Archive]

Beaker_

16th Jun 2021, 18:50

I'm not sure I see much benefit. Clearly the main object is to save money, so let's apply some simple maths. I don't know exactly how much the overheads are on a single pilot, so let's base it on £100k salary + £100k training and other overheads for argument's sake:

£200k ÷ 750 hours = £266/hour
For argument's sake, let's say the aircraft has 266 passengers and they're all paying equally to the pilots salary. That's £1/hour.

So we're looking at saving £10 per passenger for a 10 hour flight.

Now when you weigh that up against the development costs and potential for unforeseen risks, issues etc. is it really worth it? Now I'm aware that every cost saving improvement is accumulative but at the thought of what sounds like reduced redundancy, saving a tenner wouldn't really cut it for me.

Edit: I didn't make it clear that the assumption would be that any savings would be passed onto the passenger. However, I suppose not all the savings need to be passed on and some of it becomes profit...

vilas

16th Jun 2021, 19:28

Look! A350 has done 500 tests of ATTOL i.e. Autonomous Taxi Take Off and Landing in which pilots didn't do anything except engine start. A350 manages AF447 situation automatically, it does emergency descent without any action from pilot, it does auto TCAS. So it's not what everyone is talking about. It's difficult to digest but it's the march of technology. Many things we use today were unimaginable 30 years ago.

sudden twang

16th Jun 2021, 19:29

So what alternative do you propose?
Two pilots

Equivocal

16th Jun 2021, 19:41

Ahhh, what the safety engineers call the 'No change option'. D'you know, I remember the days when aircraft carried two pilots and a flight engineer and a navigator. And they flew by DR and sights unless they had the luxury of a locator along the route. Why did they change all that?

Airmann

16th Jun 2021, 19:43

From the article

Both arguments miss the point, according to a source close to Lufthansa - who said the airline's executives were advised last year that the programme could not meet safety goals.

It seems that Airbus engineers have got the hubris bug just as Boeing’s did with the MAX.

Luke SkyToddler

16th Jun 2021, 19:56

I'm surprised Cathay of all companies have chosen to be the first one to roll this dice

When the negative publicity comes - which it will, because we'll make sure that it will - their carefully built up image as one of the safest airlines will be seriously jeopardized.

If they lose even a few thousand nervous pax per year across the network as a consequence, then all of the alleged cost savings will be gone, and they'll have nothing to show for it but a damaged reputation.

If / when an incident happens while single pilot, they risk getting their image absolutely trashed on the same scale that happened to Malaysian, or worse

Very little to gain and everything to lose IMO

CargoOne

16th Jun 2021, 20:08

That’s a good development which paves the way to unmanned cockpit and therefore an improvement of the flight safety.

FullWings

16th Jun 2021, 20:33

So, if they are going to use two pilots for TO and LDG, where are the savings? I’d quite like to be able to go back for a kip on a 2-crew flight but it’s not reducing the crew complement overall. There’d have to be a serious rewrite of FTLs before there was a commercial advantage...?

Airmann

16th Jun 2021, 20:51

There are some Aviation authorities that don’t count rest time toward FTL. So could potentially work the slaves longer. But I think this is mostly aimed at flights with augmented crews. So could go from 3 or 4 to two.

Less Hair

16th Jun 2021, 20:57

Two is the minimum required for redundancy. You can have number two remotely connected sit on the ground but it will be not the same quality in decision making.This is why it would degrade flight safety. Look at extreme military drone crash rates and the reasons for it.

ScepticalOptomist

16th Jun 2021, 21:11

Plenty of accountants love the idea - it’s us pilots that oppose it.

sudden twang

16th Jun 2021, 21:18

This is all about 2 flight crew being reduced to 1 for the cruise not 4 to three or three to two.
When a workable solution to the pilot at the controls being able to have a pee etc is formulated I’ll be all ears.

tdracer

16th Jun 2021, 21:47

Beaker

Not taking a position on this pro or con, just pointing out the potential cost benefits:
It takes roughly 4 full time pilots/seat to crew an aircraft - at ~£200k/year that's over a million dollars per aircraft per pilot. That's a recurring cost - so ~$25 million per aircraft over the life of the aircraft (more when you factor in benefits into the salary).
Developing the s/w and h/w to automate out a pilot is not recurring (aside from some support costs as the s/w gets periodically updated. Build 1,000 aircraft with the feature that eliminates one pilot and you're talking $25 Billion in savings to the operators. That would pay for a pretty robust development program with plenty left over in the profit column...

40 years ago, while Boeing was developing the 767, the FAA released a study that showed that there was no safety improvement between a 2 crew and a 3 crew flight deck. Boeing had made the 2 crew EICAS equipped flight deck an option with a price tag of a little under $1 million. With one exception, all the launch customers quickly changed their orders to the 2 crew EICAS configuration - at the time they quoted the payback in pay/benefits as less than 2 years.

In short, eliminating crew costs is a big carrot...

fitliker

16th Jun 2021, 21:54

135.89 Pilot requirements: Use of oxygen. (a) Unpressurized aircraft. Each pilot of an unpressurized aircraft shall use oxygen continuously when flying—

(1) At altitudes above 10,000 feet through 12,000 feet MSL for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration; and

(2) Above 12,000 feet MSL.

(b) Pressurized aircraft. (1) Whenever a pressurized aircraft is operated with the cabin pressure altitude more than 10,000 feet MSL, each pilot shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) Whenever a pressurized aircraft is operated at altitudes above 25,000 feet through 35,000 feet MSL, unless each pilot has an approved quick-donning type oxygen mask—

(i) At least one pilot at the controls shall wear, secured and sealed, an oxygen mask that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 12,000 feet MSL; and

(ii) During that flight, each other pilot on flight deck duty shall have an oxygen mask, connected to an oxygen supply, located so as to allow immediate placing of the mask on the pilot's face sealed and secured for use.

(3) Whenever a pressurized aircraft is operated at altitudes above 35,000 feet MSL, at least one pilot at the controls shall wear, secured and sealed, an oxygen mask required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.

(4) If one pilot leaves a pilot duty station of an aircraft when operating at altitudes above 25,000 feet MSL, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an approved oxygen mask until the other pilot returns to the pilot duty station of the aircraft.

FlyingStone

16th Jun 2021, 22:14

There's world outside of FAA as well, not to mention that I can guarantee you the compliance with this rule is much less than 100%.

Airmann

16th Jun 2021, 22:48

No doubt, Airbus will try to convince them that given the existence of auto emergency descent donning the mask is unnecessary. But in any case the unions in the US would never sign off on this anyway

Loose rivets

16th Jun 2021, 23:43

There's been no mention of MO'L up to this point.

GlobalNav

17th Jun 2021, 00:28

Airmann

And they shouldn’t. And if pax want to fly on it they should sign a waiver

Chronic Snoozer

17th Jun 2021, 02:33

How many safety engineers does it take to change a light bulb? None. We've done the safety case and can assure you it's safe to carry on in the dark. We call it the 'No change option'.

GlobalNav

17th Jun 2021, 03:17

tdracer

Yep, but which pilot is eliminated, the pilot flying or the pilot monitoring?

Oh, and you can save the money and weight of a cockpit voice recorder- no one to talk to.

You could save the cost of either the captain’s air data system or is it the first officer’s?

Would be more savings to eliminate the captain because first officers are paid less.

Why didn’t we think of this before now?

megan

17th Jun 2021, 03:33

Perhaps like the new Dassault 10X the cockpit will have lie flat seats, the rest bunk can be eliminated and more pax seats squeezed in. Win, win, two pilots always at their duty station, even though one asleep, and more pax, what more could a bean counter wish for? If only one pilot up front count me out as SLF, two fully alert homo sapiens needed at all times.

FMS82

17th Jun 2021, 05:57

This is happening, as much as people on this forum (understandably) hate it.

I expect unmanned cargo flights within the decade (why do you think Airbus is pitching their A350F so aggressively.... they are likely selling it as a 1 person operation, with potential to be fully automated for the second half of its life)

Once it's clear those operations are perfectly safe, passenger traffic will follow suit.

It's been done on trains, it's been done on cars, it's been done on ships....

FMS82

17th Jun 2021, 06:07

tdracer

And we're not even doing Net Present Value here, and we're looking at salary only (lower accommodation cost, smaller training setups needed, the list goes on...)

The potential is huge. That's why the beancounters are so hot on this one. Anything that structurally lowers operating cost by that much is a no-brainer.

Less Hair

17th Jun 2021, 06:13

Unmanned freighters, possibly being formation flying slaves of manned passenger airliners, might in fact be coming. But a passenger airliner ticket is a product that needs to be bought by people that trust it while sitting on board. Let one thing go wrong, severe thunderstorms over the pacific and complete loss of network connections and onboard computers, fire or similar and this idea will be toast. Imagine the airline having only bot planes and no more pilots then. The pilots are needed for the non standard decisions not for day to day ops only.

We are not there and won't be for some time. Not even with cars.

neville_nobody

17th Jun 2021, 06:22

The potential is huge. That's why the beancounters are so hot on this one. Anything that structurally lowers operating cost by that much is a no-brainer

At what risk though?

Like magic a whole bunch of problems that never existed will start appearing. Changing the whole infrastructure and foundation of aviation doesn't really do alot other than solve one problem which is human error and replace it with a litany of new ones which have traditionally be mitigated by humans operators.

Less Hair

17th Jun 2021, 06:27

This would mean changes to all certification rules and standards. Requiring political pressure on certifying authorities unheard of before. I personally consider this neither certifiable nor accepted by the flying public.

KiloB

17th Jun 2021, 07:47

FMS82

The difference with Trains, Cars and Ships is that if it all looks like going TU you can just STOP! Oh, and Trains use a ‘dead mans handle’.

Inverted Flat Spin

17th Jun 2021, 07:48

I prefer it, as opposed to some IG kid getting in the way of me getting the job done.

That kid might be the one sitting alone in the cockpit.

FullWings

17th Jun 2021, 08:51

FMS82

I’m not so sure. There are a lot of problems still to sort out.

I have no doubt that eventually we will have fusion-powered autonomous electric aircraft but there’s a lot of engineering between now and then.

It's been done on trains, it's been done on cars, it's been done on ships....
I’ll give you trains but that was possible using 19th century technology and the vast majority still have human drivers. Cars, despite all the hype (and billions of $), are still a long way from full autonomy, and that’s in something that can pull over and stop by the side of the road with the hazards on if it gets really confused. Wish I could do that in an aeroplane!

I think there is a parallel here with driving automation levels: they go from zero (no assistance at all) to five (full automation). Level 1 includes things like active cruise control and lane assist, which operate within defined parameters and require regular driver input and Level 2 adds stuff like manoeuvring in traffic jams but driver still required. So far so good. Level 3 starts adding hands off stuff and Level 4 is close to not needing to provide any input, but still can’t “go anywhere”.

There is a significant body of opinion that Level 3/4 autonomy is less useful than it might appear and that we should really go straight to Level 5, even though it may take a while. One of the reasons is that you have abstracted the human away from the functioning of the vehicle, but still require them to intervene at short notice should things start going wrong. This is a big ask and similar to the automation dependence we see emerging in aviation.

There is a marked difference between technology demonstrations in a curated environment and something that can operate safely under all circumstances. For the level of autonomy indicated, this is going to have to involve ML/AI: how quickly are regulators going to respond to that?

Beaker_

17th Jun 2021, 09:12

tdracer

True, but aren't those savings usually passed onto the customer in order to be slightly more competitive against competitors? My thinking is that for the sake of a £10 saving for what's going to be a few hundred pounds for a ticket anyway, is it worth it?

Well clearly some people think it is! :)

Timmy Tomkins

17th Jun 2021, 09:13

Beaker

That is music to the ears of managers. We had an argument over the 20p sachet of ketchup on the breakfast tray, before they removed breakfast altogether.

sudden twang

17th Jun 2021, 10:16

Truckdrivers (and fighter pilots) have been using it for years: A bottle with a funnel.
I said workable.
Where I’m from a truck driver involved in a fatal accident using a mobile phone got 10 years. How can a pee tube be legal?
Until the safety case for an unmanned flight deck mentally or physically is made for 10 or so minutes I can see a problem.
Oh hang on, won’t this make pilots much more productive? Pay rises all round hurrah where do I sign?

Anti Skid On

17th Jun 2021, 12:02

It's coming folks, and you aren't going to stop it. Many underground systems are unmanned and work without incident. As someone said earlier Airbus have demonstrated an A350 gate to gate without anyone doing anything other than starting the engines. I can remember when folks said ETOPS was a bad thing and we'd have 1000's of hull losses. Autoland and autobrakes improved safety. The biggest air disasters have been caused when pilots did not follow instructions (Tenerife).

I totally get the 'what happens when' scenarios - engine failure, fire, a control surface detaching, non-retractable gear, etc. Many of these happen, and the outcome isn't always great with two skilled crew on board. I get the automated car analogy, but comparing that to aerospace is wrong. Automated cars have to deal with people, and people are unpredictable in their movements. Airspace there's separation and the systems will allow

For me, the biggest risk is the boredom faced by the solo pilot for 4 or 5 hours.

Elac29

17th Jun 2021, 12:58

With all the “Talent” at $20HKD per hour coming to the CX group what could possibly go wrong!? 😂

FullWings

17th Jun 2021, 13:25

It's coming folks, and you aren't going to stop it.
This is true. But “it” is coming for every human endeavour - there is nothing that can’t be automated. Even posting to PPRuNe (Although I think that this has already happened, judging by some contributions...)

The point I am trying to make is that an autonomous aircraft has to play nice with the rest of the infrastructure which was designed, built for and still in use by humans and I remain unconvinced that aeroplane manufacturers understand how difficult that might be, especially when it comes to certification. Making something that takes off and lands by itself and even taxies to the gate is not hard; it is covering the enormous set of edge cases that aircraft encounter several of daily that is the hard bit, as it is for self-driving cars.

Less Hair

17th Jun 2021, 14:04

There are proven cases where only three people on the flight deck could successfully handle surprising emergencies, like the first MAX upset (engineer), Qantas A380, Sioux City (three plus one). And the industry wants to go down to one? We have seen how fast a reputation can be damaged by saving at the wrong end.

Chiefttp

17th Jun 2021, 14:35

If my airline tried to do this, I’d be asking for a very large pay raise since I’m now 100% responsible for cockpit duties. Many assume that your eliminating the cost of another pilot, but these savings are offset by the additional pay for the single pilot, the cost of automating systems to perform duties of the eliminated pilot and also the cost of ground controllers who are monitoring the single pilot. Plus one accident and all those savings are in the toilet. I’m not even going to speculate on the percentage of passengers who will not set foot on a single piloted airliner.

crwkunt roll

17th Jun 2021, 15:23

Somebody in “Cathy” has just decided to contact Reuters to wind up the pilot body to remind us that we are lucky to have a job right now.

old,not bold

17th Jun 2021, 15:36

Single pilot; no pilot, whatever.

Sitting out there, probably where you can't see him, on every aircraft that ever flies you will find little Mr Gremlin. And he's just waiting for the opportunity to push you through the third hole in the cheese. And when he does I'll want to know that there are 2 competent people aboard the same aircraft as me, trained to expect and deal with the unexpected. Why 2? Because the first hole could well be the incapacity of one of them.

It is utterly absurd to regard the remote operation of military drones as essentially the same as remote operation of highly complex air transport passenger aircraft. For a start, where's the saving? The pilots are only moving to another seat, with hugely expensive comms systems for controlling the aircraft. How many back-up systems will be needed? At least 2 or 3, each with alternate comms channels. Will duty hours change? No. Will 1 "crew" operate more than one aircraft simultaneously? No (think about it.) Etc etc. It's the stupidest notion I've ever heard, and needs to be put to bed for another 50 years to allow the technology to catch up.

Beaker_

17th Jun 2021, 18:32

Timmy Tomkins

Sorry, I didn't make it clear in the original post that I assumed all savings would be passed onto the passenger. However, I suppose some of that can be kept back as profit...

Edited original post accordingly now.

Bleve

17th Jun 2021, 23:19

Less Hair

Minor correction: the Qantas A380 had five pilots to deal with the problem, the three operating crew plus two check captains (one checking the captain and the other checking the checker).

Spoilersrevgreen

18th Jun 2021, 02:43

I’ve quite often felt like I was “single pilot in the cruise” at CX on A30s and A50s. Go figure.

Anti Skid On

18th Jun 2021, 06:44

Bleve

Yes, and that aircraft was climbing out of SIN, not on cruise as per the proposal. Earlier there was mention of Sioux City, where the DC10 was at cruise level. Technology has advanced considerably since 1989

Less Hair

18th Jun 2021, 06:50

The point is more crew than planned can be helpful. Planning with less than two is not redundant. This would change the entire proven approach to safety.

Squawk7777

18th Jun 2021, 08:25

Anti Skid On

It has, but my issue with automation is software reliability. My longest flights are only about 6 hours, but when you fly two to three sectors a day and prepare your data entries, the odds of misbehaving software adds up. I have witnessed a few moments in flight where automation or software was NOT behaving the way it was supposed to. Thankfully, there were two of us on board. CB resets single pilot? No thanks.

Uplinker

18th Jun 2021, 12:22

Reducing cost certainly is a big carrot, but not one that is compatible with safety, no matter what they might claim. Witness Boeing and the Max fiasco where they tried to save money - a fiasco that killed 300 people.

Improved navigation infrastructure and modern equipment with improved accuracy and ease of use removed the need for a separate navigator in the cockpit. Ditto the radio operator, ditto the flight engineer.

But this does not mean that it is sensible to reduce the aircraft cockpit crew to one pilot. Passenger long-haul aircraft don't cross oceans with a single engine.

Engine failure, depressurisation and fire are three major risks that would be extremely compromised if only one pilot was in the cockpit, while the other was sleeping in their bunk.

Major electrical failure would be another - we had an intermittent main generator failure once, that knocked out the A/P and the A/Thr, and it would have been chaotic with only one pilot to hand fly and deal with and solve the rapidly changing problem. QRH and memory drills are based on one pilot flying and another pilot monitoring, and performing emergency QRH tasks.

Trains have single drivers, but they run on tracks, in one dimension, at ground level. Any problem, such as incapacitation, and the train will just apply the brakes and stop. Ditto engine failure. Trains cannot depressurise and even if there is a fire, the train can stop and all the passengers can simply get out.

RVF750

18th Jun 2021, 16:25

Reducing to one pilot is a manager's wet dream. REmember the most important part though. Any single pilot aircraft needs to be simple enough that a day 1 second officer can fly it safely. They'll never get to sit next to a Captain and learn, so it's the Captain who's days are numbered. A far bigger cost saving than removing the flap puller. I think I'll stick to the ferry.

physicus

18th Jun 2021, 22:49

I've been intimately involved with AP testing and development for automotive applications for some years now. I can safely say that it is a far more complex problem than automating airplane movements and flight - simply because aviation takes place in a controlled environment. There are no children running across a runway unexpectedly (nor would the autopilot need to tell the difference between said children and a blowing by paper bag). Further, there's very little one can do to avoid obstacles on a runway even as a human pilot. If that deer crosses when it wants to, you will hit it, you can't brake and swerve. There will be little anyone can do to prevent pilots from becoming obsolete - we do after all account for about 80% of accidents. It simply makes sense with the exception of the irrational fear we have about not having a fellow human being present in the same vehicle we are in - irrational is the keyword here.

The critical junction Airbus is now at deals with how to implement complete automation (level 5 autonomy) without making things LESS safe during implementation. Going single pilot would be an absolute facepalm decision - and I don't think for a second they really are considering this. What they will want to do is not add new variables. Leave all as is, but start relying on the pilots for backup only. It will take several years of fully automated flight to demonstrate that the autopilot handles all abnormals as well (or better) than a crew would. Regulators will follow, the rest is history.

Commander Taco

19th Jun 2021, 03:16

You’re comparing how difficult it is to achieve a level of automation sufficient to avoid children crossing a runway with commercial aviation? Jesus Murphy.

AtoBsafely

19th Jun 2021, 04:26

Hey Physicus,

You would be very surprised how many surprises there are in the “controlled” aviation environment.

eg weather, birds, crews who misunderstand a clearance, computers which fail to follow instructions, guys with jet packs, etc.

It happens often.

ps Good luck with making cars smart. Our “smart” aircraft are still trying to kill us.

TheRednosedReindeer

19th Jun 2021, 06:00

As long as profitability matters to companies, safety will have a hard time claiming the top priority. I think the MAX saga has made it quite clear. Engineers will always be under pressure to take shortcuts. Even when designing advanced automation.
"Human factors" on the other hand don't just cause accidents. They also prevent them. You just don't read about that part in the newspapers.

FMS82

19th Jun 2021, 07:51

Sitting out there, probably where you can't see him, on every aircraft that ever flies you will find little Mr Gremlin. And he's just waiting for the opportunity to push you through the third hole in the cheese.

Would have given you that argument with aircraft designed until the 90's - 744's, 777's, A330's... essentially the first full glass deck kit. There was (and is) plenty of 'What's it doing now" going on in those machines. But they are 20 to 30 years behind an A350, and in those 20 years we have made incredible leaps in terms of computing power and systems reliability.

The predictability and sheer boredom of operating the 350 is really impressive engineering, doesn't make pilot's jobs more interesting - but I am convinced this paves the for safely pulling the human out of the loop.

JamesGBC

19th Jun 2021, 09:15

The Martin Baker pre flight checklist consists of saying a four letter word and has been handled quite easy by single pilots for years. I do not see the problem from a pilots perceptive ?

Uplinker

19th Jun 2021, 09:17

But the basic premise is wrong. Just because there are thousands of hours flown by transatlantic 'heavy' crews in which nothing happens, is not a reason to get rid of one of those pilots. Nor is reducing to one pilot to reduce passenger's air fares a valid premise. Have we learned nothing from the Boeing Max ?

Say there were only two pilots and there was a depressurisation after Cap had been in the bunk for an hour. Cap is in deep sleep, so is not going to be able to assimilate the situation for some minutes, which could be critical and would reduce safety. F/O has mask on and is descending to FL100 and has turned towards an alternate, but with the high workload, has forgotten to set emergency squawk or put the belts on, or notify the CC. Meanwhile, the CC has (hopefully) realised and woken the Cap and given them a portable oxygen set. Captain, just awoken and low on oxygen blearily makes their way to the cockpit.......Would you be able to think clearly if you were that Captain ?

Or a cargo fire. We have very little time to get a fire under control before it compromises flight.

What about a single pilot operating guarded switches with nobody to check the correct switch or the correct failed engine ??

If 80% of incidents are (allegedly) 'caused' by pilots, then having fewer pilots will not reduce that figure, it will increase it. Humans make mistakes, and in the vast majority of cases, pilots catch each other's mistakes - that's why there are always at least two of us - and therefore usually nothing goes wrong. But having only one pilot would remove that safety net. Two brains and two pairs of eyes are better than one.

AF447 does NOT prove that a single pilot would be better than two. It only proved that a very poor "pilot" had somehow slipped through all the training and exams, which does not make the case for reducing pilots. It also proved that a Captain just awoken from sleep is not able to assimilate situations very quickly and see the solution in time.

For goodness' sake, don't reduce below two pilots, but do improve training of all pilots.

Less Hair

19th Jun 2021, 09:40

This would need to be permitted for certification by aviation authorities first. As in actively promoting this. I don't see it happening. The FAA is still recovering from the MAX and EASA has been more safety concerned anyway and moves back to even more own party analysis.

It might be some Airbus initiative to clear the technical and bureaucratic path for an optional single pilot operated A320-successor one day just in case but still this collides with every basic redundancy requirement.

TukwillaFlyboy

19th Jun 2021, 09:44

The lawyers will kill the idea of autonomous aircraft.
Who is responsible in matters of strict liability ?
Military drones may be very capable but they have a shed load of trained personnel supporting the mission and in the subsequent inquiry when there is a SNAFU there will be questions asked as to whether or not rules of engagement etc. where followed.
There still has to be a Pilot in Command. In the air or via a datalink on the ground.
Civil aviation will be the same.
Who will be responsible for;
…..Flight Planning
….Fuel order
…..Accepting the maintenance release
…..Liaising with Flight Attendants and off-loading drunken disorderly
…..Weather avoidance enroute
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Might seem plausible to accountants / engineers / managers who have no experience of the operational environment,but I think they are clueless.
Oh , and love to see fully automated aircraft cope with a runway change with 40 aircraft in the queue and a thunderstorm in the vicinity.
Someone will still have to be in Command.
Cant see it ever happening.

vilas

19th Jun 2021, 10:55

Uplinker

All concerns are justified but examples quoted are wrong on many counts. First, number in front doesn't help. AF447 was crashed by two in front. SFO crashed with three in front. Qantas 747 400 was stalled three times in a hold near HongKong by three in front who not only didn't know the correct holding speed they erased the speed that was in FMS to insert wrong speed and whose combined experience was 40000hrs. So let's put more the merrier theory to bed.
Second, I am very sure Airbus doesn't want to repeat 737MAX saga by shelling out billions to squash the case.
Third, the bogey of EMER DES is not applicable to A350 because if the system cannot prevent the cabin pressure loss and estimates cabin altitude to rise beyond 10000ft in 10seconds it arms the auto EMER DES and if not cancelled or activated, at 15 seconds performs EMER DES without any initiation from pilot that includes cabin announcement, commencing descent to MORA/10000ft, offsetting track by 2.5nm, turning radar tilt down and squacking7700. And if there TCAS RA on the way down it will perform the escape automatically. Unreliable speed is not going to happen either because it has another set of pitot static in the engine that gives alternate speed if that also fails then from GW, CG and lift equation it gives you back up speed. All changes are automatic, the pilot notwithstanding one or two is just informed about the change. All he does may be say thank you and order coffee. AP can be engaged even after dual engine flame out.
Four, Airbus has already done 550hrs on ATTOL Automated Taxi Takeoff and Landing program where the pilot only started in the engines(I hope so) rest of the flight was done automatically. So there may be more automatics on the way in these trials. Offcourse no matter how safe it will be a conflict of interest for the community and no one is going to like it. Boeing may be the biggest opponent of this because as of now they don't have an equivalent. But should it come through they won't remain far behind.

Less Hair

19th Jun 2021, 11:07

Pilots will not gain more handling skills, practical pilotage experience and stay current if they are denoted to be cruise observers until something serious breaks. This is neither one thing nor the other. Could it be meant to prove that it doesn't work to come to the conclusion better leave pilots out altogether and go Tesla?

alf5071h

19th Jun 2021, 14:31

vilas, #82; a thoughtful post, reminding us that there are alternative, justifiable points of view

For those who disagree, ok, but please provide a reasoned and argued debate.
Starting with this quote ?

“If you want to fly as [traditional pilots] say they do, then go fly gliders, become test pilots, for all I care go to the moon. But flying for the airlines is not supposed to be an adventure. From takeoff to landing, the autopilots handle the controls. This is routine. In a Boeing as much as an Airbus. And they make better work of it than any pilot can. You’re not supposed to be the blue-eyed hero here. Your job is to make decisions, to stay awake, and to know which buttons to push and when. Your job is to manage the systems.”

Quoted text from 2009 book Fly by Wire: The Geese, the Glide, the Miracle on the Hudson. - William Langewiesche

Spooky 2

19th Jun 2021, 15:00

"Boeing may be the biggest opponent of this because as of now they don't have an equivalent. But should it come through they won't remain far behind".

Boeing is on this now, and has been working on this concept for some time. The 777X autoflight sytem & FBW was designed with this concept in mind, and will continue to serve as the initial platform as time passes. Their plate is pretty full at the moment, so it remains to be see whether it actually comes to fruition in this decade.

beardy

19th Jun 2021, 16:54

alf5071h

Flying attracts those who are thrill seekers, who thrive on excitement. You know what, passengers don't want thrills, the management don't want thrills. The professional pilot who understands this uses his skill to make the flight routine, uninteresting, boring even. That is difficult for those of us who have a high threshold for stimulation.

Uplinker

19th Jun 2021, 21:52

vilas, yes but I never argued for "the more the merrier", I argued for a minimum of two pilots - not the same thing. The examples you give would not have been solved if only one (duff) pilot was in the cockpit. Like I say, improve pilot training and testing.

The A350, clever as it might be, will not be quite so clever if it suffers a major electrical, or other major system failure.

alf5071h, I have spent hundreds of hours crossing the Atlantic and the Indian oceans, staring forwards into blackness for hours on end, with nothing going wrong, while the aircraft is on A/P. I don't have a problem with doing that at all.

I have also twice had to emergency descend and dump fuel before making an unscheduled landing. If I wanted thrills, I would fly aerobatics in Pitts or Zlins. I agree totally with the last two sentences of your quote. :ok:

Wizofoz

19th Jun 2021, 22:28

Some of the most fatiguing flying I've ever done has been two crew at the limit of FDLs. If I could have left the perfectly competent FO in charge while I sent back for a kip in a comfortable crew rest, and then likewise for him, it would have enhanced safety,

Anti Skid On

20th Jun 2021, 04:06

Just to refocus this thread. A350, single pilot, on cruise.

Not - Remove all aircrew, let the computer do all the flight controls. Can we have a little bit of perspective? Yes, it may be the start of a slippery slope, but it's a proposal.

Also, can someone tell me the number of hull losses from events happening whilst at cruise versus hull losses at departure or final approach?

320busboy

20th Jun 2021, 11:00

Witness Boeing and the Max fiasco where they tried to save money - a fiasco that killed 300 people.

the difference is that it seems airbus has not cut corners with boat anchor systems like Boeing. Boeing added a control system with only 2 AOA. Airbus added more redundant multi sensor systems to improve safety. Cost a shedload no doubt.

apples for apples the 2 manufacturers do things very differently. No problems with the fear of pulling circuit breakers in a Boeing. The FCOM doesn’t really allow it unless your in a dire circumstance.

Give you a free lunch if you can find a cb on the 350 overhead. There are authorised computer resets in the fcom, different philosophy to Boeing.

fab777

20th Jun 2021, 18:10

I don't think the business case is clear already, as we do not know the applicable regulations that ICAO and EASA will issue in terms of certification/operations/flight time limitations...

Let us have an example:

You can have singe pilot cruise ops (EMCO) certified by proving, among a load of other things, that the probability of an emergency descent multiplied by the probability of an auto emer des sytem failure stays below a certain safety threshold. What if one pack or one bleed is MEL? the probability of an emergency descent goes through the roof, as you have no redundancy anymore (been there...) .Still under that treshold? If not, no extended minimal crew operation today. Crew is augmented, or flight cancelled if no standby crew. And what if the failure happens in flight? Of course, you expect the second pilot to come back from the bunk. But then, what is the maximum flight duty period? The FDP originally planned with EMCO, or basic max FDP? Depending on the regulation, you may end up diverting for some very minor failures.

They can do it, ok. But will that be really profitable in the long run? Not sure. Time will tell...

fisher22

20th Jun 2021, 19:26

procede

How do you know the captain would have not pulled up as well? And if other first/second officers were assigned to that flight would all of them pull up using your logic?

procede

21st Jun 2021, 08:51

No, but this particular second officer would not have been there if they would have been allowed to fly with a two man crew. More humans in this case simply meant more chance of human error.

Second officers generally aren't that experienced and especially inexperienced pilots are know to have really bad panic responses to unexpected situations.

I was just looking at this video on fatal accidents in GA due to students locking the controls in a panic response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JvdoZUEUwU&t=230s

Fewdoom

21st Jun 2021, 15:07

So all this PM/PF confirm/confirmed FPM is complete bunk then? It's good to see engineers and managers have it all sorted.

Mr A Tis

21st Jun 2021, 19:02

What about the Germanwings incident where the co-pilot deliberately crashed the aircraft after locking the Captain out?
Since then, many airlines insist on minimum 2 people on flight deck at all times. So, when one needs the lav-a cabin crew must remain on the FD until the other crew returns.

vilas

21st Jun 2021, 20:21

Boeing added a control system with only 2 AOA.
No! They did it with a single AoA. They didn't bother to connect the other one which is installed. Only after the crashes they connected them.

320busboy

21st Jun 2021, 22:12

my bad. Thanks for correcting me. That makes it even more ridiculous. This is the benefit of modern systems in Airbus. You don’t bolt on something to fix something. You can use the various redundant systems and change the software function to suit. Sure some things are hard wired, however the data is shared on one of the many redundant data bus’s.

RedBelt

22nd Jun 2021, 05:34

Just ask the regulatory agencies if they accept all the ETOPS operations to go Single Engine? Why not? the engines are so reliable our days!!!!
Single Pilot Operations are the big push from the Industry (Airbus and Boeing) because they've realized it is impossible to crew the number of aircraft they are planning to sell. This was a study done pre pandemic but it is still valid.

A321drvr

22nd Jun 2021, 08:51

Also final reserve fuel. What's the point? Haven't heard of anyone for years using any part thereof.

averdung

22nd Jun 2021, 18:12

They’re after reserve crew. Making the 2nd pilot “reserve crew” cuts a lot of personnel costs up front, not only salary, and Cathay is a logical early adopter because they do a lot of 2-crew flights. All other LH operators are gonna watch this one very carefully... and of course, once this is done they will plan the next step, which is getting rid of the 2nd pilot, because the lifetime costs of a pilot (salary, retirement benefits, hotel, ground transport, etc) add up to a pretty penny and pilots can’t be traded or put up as collateral (yet) (Not valid in the sandbox)

Freight will go uncrewed first, until the first accident caused by an unexpected/unannounced GPS jam, which is something that’s already a problem, but unknown to the bean counters who get lost in their Lincoln Navigators. After that one, we’ll rest easy until at least 2100, by which time there’ll be demand for pilots on Mars, and all of us here will be either winged or horned (or reincarnated)...

Lookleft

24th Jun 2021, 06:44

All other LH operators are gonna watch this one very carefully...

Well one already has-Lufthansa and they have already said no because it doesn't meet the safety requirements:

Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) has also worked on the single-pilot programme but currently has no plans to use it, a spokesman for the German carrier told Reuters..... Both arguments miss the point, according to a source close to Lufthansa - who said the airline's executives were advised last year that the programme could not meet safety goals..

I think LH might know a thing or two about long haul flying and crew costs.

Less Hair

24th Jun 2021, 06:49

LH will roster a senior first officer as third crew member for long range cruise not take one less.

neville_nobody

25th Jun 2021, 06:12

But flying for the airlines is not supposed to be an adventure. From takeoff to landing, the autopilots handle the controls. This is routine. In a Boeing as much as an Airbus. And they make better work of it than any pilot can. You’re not supposed to be the blue-eyed hero here. Your job is to make decisions, to stay awake, and to know which buttons to push and when. Your job is to manage the systems.”

Which is all fantastic until they screw up. I have personally saved myself from an autopilot in an airliner trying to kill me twice in five years. Sure they're great most of the time but they are not infallible and need to be monitored. The other issue that really irks me is the way regulators treat automation screw ups. If a pilot tries to spear an airliner into the ground he gets called in for counseling and revaluation. If the automation does it then they just shrug their shoulders. I know of one particular known software issue which should have grounded the fleet until it was fixed but despite being reported the regulator didn't have the courage to do something and take on a manufacturer. They just sat there and watched the reports pile up until 6 months later a software update came out. This in my opinion is why automation is treated with almost God like reverence. If we saw some real data on how many times pilots save the day from automation killing them I think the attitude in the industry might change. However it looks like they are hell bent on proving the hard way why two pilots and good automation is the only real safe option.

ATC Watcher

25th Jun 2021, 08:44

A great description of why full automation is still years away. The drone industry is going to pioneer this for us and I fear is not going to be as smooth and accident-free as they are all claiming . The attitude of the regulator(s) is going to be interesting to watch ,

TukwillaFlyboy

26th Jun 2021, 03:20

Enthusiasts for fully automated flight might like to review the multiple Bulletins issued by Boeing over the last decade or so regarding flight path “anomalies” in both VNAV and LNAV in RNP approaches in FMC updates U11.0 / U12.0 / U13.0 etc.
Fixed now , but a reminder ; there is no such thing as fault free software.

Less Hair

26th Jun 2021, 06:22

A drone crash database.
https://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/

vilas

26th Jun 2021, 08:11

TukwillaFlyboy

The problem with this statement is it assumes that humans are fault free. The software assistance wouldn't be in the picture at all if pilot error was not the biggest cause for incidents/accidents. Human performance is highly variable during day and night. With the same individual on day to day basis, when not rested even if he was off any duty, country to country, region to region. Proper Selection and training is not possible even in the US as Atlas, Colgan accident prove. So it's question of finding which one is more dangerous and expensive. Are CAT III operations, RVSM possible without automation?

TukwillaFlyboy

26th Jun 2021, 08:18

I personally have conducted RNP approaches with the software glitches I referred to above and watched the autopilot quietly drift off profile with no warning.
I am a big fan of RNP , GLS and GNSS etc.
But don’t tell me you are going to trust an autopilot to fly the 400 SLF, including your own family, throughout a whole flight sequence.
I’m certainly not.

vilas

26th Jun 2021, 17:04

Sitting in front as the PF Pierre-Cédric Bonin who crashed AF447 had his wife on board.
what difference did it make?

GlobalNav

26th Jun 2021, 19:09

vilas

Consider that pilots, potentially, while bot error free, commit different kinds of errors and have the capability for creative problem solving. They are not preprogrammed computers limited to actions and reactions thought of ahead of time. Think of Sioux City, Hudson River, Gimli, etc.

For all the money presumably saved, consider the cost of a single catastrophic accident. When things are working normally, the automation can perform more efficiently and in some cases with higher performance. But not so win non normal circumstances.

vilas

27th Jun 2021, 04:44

I am trying to be the devil's advocate so the community understands how technology fares against them. Soux city was a great feat, Hudson, gimli is nothing compared with it. However for Sioux city problem a software to use thrust/weight and asymmetry is possible and was being developed but due low probability of repeat it wasn't pursued. In Hudson, gimli case providing data base of gliding range without power and an additional electric hydraulics for AP can be even better managed. All credit to Sullenberger for doing what he did but if you critically analyse except the decision to ditch rest of the things human error under pressure was evident. He wasn't maintaining proper speed and when his speed dropped 19kts below Vapp it triggered alpha protection which prevented stall but also hampered proper flare and aircraft impacted heavily. So automated Airbus protection did help. Computers can handle data base of similar or possible accidents and quickly provide the lone pilot with correct solutions, and with better automation execute itself. As against this Mangalore accident in 2010 (not the only one) despite good aircraft and perfect weather due to poor Piloting158 people lost their lives. These things will be taken in consideration.

megan

27th Jun 2021, 05:05

Should you think having the humans role in the cockpit replaced with automation is a good idea you only need to review incidents and accidents caused by automation, A320 written off because software wouldn't allow the crew to flare for landing for example. Replacing pilot error in the cockpit is merely replacing it with human error on the ground by way of software coding/design errors, hardware design, inability to test all electronic failure modes etc Failure mode of the 777 upset in Oz had previously been deemed as not possible.

turbidus

27th Jun 2021, 15:33

Currently, when one of the pilots takes a break, they put a senior crew member on the flightdeck, so there are always 2 up front...
So it appears this is already happening...

Enthusiasts for fully automated flight might like to review the multiple Bulletins issued by Boeing over the last decade or so regarding flight path “anomalies” in both VNAV and LNAV in RNP approaches in FMC updates U11.0 / U12.0 / U13.0 etc.
Fixed now , but a reminder ; there is no such thing as fault free software.
Yes that was true, that is a problem with an technologically outdated FMS system running legacy software with 14 plus versions of software updates and patches.......

SamYeager

27th Jun 2021, 15:39

As a general rule I suspect that for every automation induced error someone can find an equivalent pilot error to balance it and vice versa. It will never be possible to prevent all fatal crashes but I think most would agree that the goal is to reduce such crashes to as low as possible bearing in mind the economics and practicality of such interventions.

What automation offers is consistency. Over the years there have been many great saves by pilots but equally there have also been many failures by pilots, be that through fatigue, inattention, misunderstandings, unprofessional behaviour or even downright recklessness. I have no stats but I strongly suspect the failures vastly outweigh the saves. OTOH I am sure there are many automation failures that might have resulted in fatal crashes if it were not for the human pilots intervening. This means that any aircraft with a reduced number of pilots will need rigorous testing but also that rigorous controls and testing are needed over software updates.

We can be certain that at some point a single pilot or autonomous airliner will crash through programmer error. The acid test will be if the average number of fatal crashes per year is considerably reduced through further automation.

Denti

27th Jun 2021, 16:18

turbidus

Really? People still do that? Not required with a working camera system.

Flying Clog

27th Jun 2021, 16:30

I can think of many examples where pilots have saved the day, many times having to intervene over the automation.

Can't think of one example where the automation saved the day and did the opposite of the above.

Now, with dreadfully low experienced, low paid, and under motivated pilots coming into the ranks, that muddies the waters.

Perhaps the best way to increase safety is to intervene with better training and standards.

Lookleft

28th Jun 2021, 00:12

To a pilot that statement is immediately obvious, to the accountants and business MBA,s that run the airlines, that statement is like showing a cross to a vampire. Their recent iteration of reducing crew costs was the introduction of the MPL. Thats where you took a zero hour candidate,gave them ten hours in an aircraft then 100 hours in a sim and plonked them in the RHS to act as a low paid, debt ridden, seat warmer. There is no technical advantage in single pilot cruise ops ( or the Airbus acronym Single Human In Technology), only a supposed cost one.

procede

28th Jun 2021, 09:58

There is also no need to have two pilots in the cockpit during cruise, especially not if they are poorly trained cruise only pilots. My only concern is that the remaining pilot falls asleep due to boredom or needs to go to the bathroom.

Having less crew on long haul flights also means that each pilot will get more opportunities to take-off and land, which are the critical parts of the flight.

Lookleft

28th Jun 2021, 10:16

My only concern is that the remaining pilot falls asleep due to boredom or needs to go to the bathroom.

You have just contradicted your own statement. Thats at least two reasons why you need two pilots in the flight deck during all stages of flight.

Having less crew on long haul flights also means that each pilot will get more opportunities to take-off and land, which are the critical parts of the flight.

So instead of doing 10 take-off and landings a year they get to do 12? Not sure that is going to substantially enhance the flying skills of long haul pilots.

procede

28th Jun 2021, 11:03

vilas

28th Jun 2021, 15:31

There are too many incidents/accidents due to human failure to brow beat technological intervention. Two Bonafide pilots in front with headsets off and speakers off. Not an isolated incident. In one case fighters were scrambled. One taking rest, other on ipad dials altitude instead of resetting heading leading to altitude bust. Capt sleeps for hour plus, starts ATC delayed descent, 9000ft out of slot never realised(sleep inertia) lands deep out of badly unstable approach and go around after reversing kills 158 people in good weather. No! This will not do. Now only question is whether technology can do better. May be not present machines but more redundancies and reliability can do it. Or can humans be changed?

slast

28th Jun 2021, 16:41

vilas, which accident was that ?

vilas

28th Jun 2021, 16:46

AI Express 2010 Mangalore crash

rock-the-boat

28th Jun 2021, 17:24

The real problem here, is that technological advancements are being resisted based on the misconception that the catastrophic failure scenarios that many contributors conjure up, can be dealt with by the average pilot, there is not evidence in this regard. It is the reliability of technology, that ensures that these failures are so rare, that pilots of average or mediocre skill level, can ensure positive outcomes in this almost error-free environment. We must factor out the pilot in areas where they perform inherently poorly as a result of their humanness, from there there is a small jump to the pilot supporting the machine, rather than the machine supporting the pilot, small, but inevitable and absolutely crucial as the environment in which aircraft operates changes.

Flying Clog

28th Jun 2021, 18:22

Or just fix the fatigue and incompetence issues.

Maintain the standards and checking. But that costs money and accountants don't like it.

You pay peanuts and you get monkeys.

vilas

28th Jun 2021, 18:31

Maintaining high standard, in selection, training and checking is difficult even in one country like the US, globally impossible. Since energy levels of every one are different, threshold of fatigue and rest also differ. Remuneration alone doesn't improve the standard.

Flying Clog

28th Jun 2021, 18:56

I think there is a pretty good link between renumeration and skills standards to be honest. With outliers of course, on occasion.

Derfred

29th Jun 2021, 01:29

Let’s get one thing straight, vilas.

Cathay and Airbus are not embarking on this project to improve safety.

There is one reason, and one reason only.

Money.

If you think 2 pilots in cruise are bad, just wait until you try one solo.

Lookleft

29th Jun 2021, 02:22

I agree with you FC. Do you think the software engineers lining up to bring us this brave new world of air travel will work for reduced wages because of the glamour of working for the airlines?

ATC Watcher

29th Jun 2021, 06:05

We have the same discussion in ATC . The "4 eyes principle" (4EP) is an internationally agreed human factor safety concept adopted some years ago by ICAO (you can google it if you want more details) It demonstrates that monitoring the activities of one another has considerable safety benefits and was therefore the rule in both ATC and flight crews. In recent years pressure to made to have this recommended concept removed in ATC The now famous single man operations . We are seeing this pressure also in the business jets community , led by Embraer .
The Ueberlingen collision in 2002 put a temporary halt to its development in ATC, but times goes by , it is nearly 20 years ago, and people forget and change. One thing is constant tough : the automation that is supposed to mitigate all this can fail, be disabled or become U/S without much warnings.

Less Hair

29th Jun 2021, 06:08

Automation and new technology should add safety. Taking out minimal crew down to only one single pilot in the cockpit decreases safety.

vilas

29th Jun 2021, 06:58

Derfred

Although it should not be at the cost of safety but profit is the raison d'etre of any business. Deeper the airline's pocket stronger is it's ability to survive adverse market conditions. The employees should not ridicule or trivialise every cost saving measure. Because a closed airline doesn't help anyone.

Less Hair

29th Jun 2021, 07:24

It looks like the proven equilibrum between cost and safety is shifting to give cost more weight?

Lookleft

29th Jun 2021, 10:38

Although it should not be at the cost of safety but profit is the raison d'etre of any business.

I'm sure the victims of Boeings pursuit of profit with the 737 MAX would be physically ill at your assertion. Interesting your use of the term should. Airlines and airline manufacturer's are in the business of transporting millions of passengers every year. If they can't do it safely and still make a profit then they don't deserve to be in business.

the_stranger

29th Jun 2021, 14:25

It really depends on what you call safe.

In the earlier part of the 20th century people flew everwhere, companies made profits but planes quite "often" crashed.
In this age, planes crash way less often, but they still do, often because of avoidable reasons. Still companies make profits, people fly.
Everything we do in life can be safer, from driving a car to baking a bread, from flying a plane to building your house.

It is always a cost-risk balance. If we did everything as safe as technology and psychology would allow us, things would be unpayable and take way longer to produce.

All our rosters, airplanes, procedures, training are a result of that balance. I think I can succesfully argue that flights between 9am and 5pm are safer than a redeye/through the night flight (which doesn't say those are unsafe), and that most flight would be even safer with 3 pilots up front than 2, but we still regularly take the cheaper, easier to plan "less safe" option.

It is all about where you (we) place the lower limit of what we call safe.And that is also a regional thing. While in the US a ferry service is subject to numerous rules and regulations to achieve a level of acceptable (un)safety, in certain other countries they are way more happy to board a rickety vessel knowing full well they often capsize or sink killing 250 people. And still, those companies are in business.

vilas

29th Jun 2021, 14:42

What Boeing did was serious because it was done knowingly. What I am saying doesn't support that at all. I am very sure Airbus has no desire to get into Boeing shoes and give up all the advantage that has fallen in their lap. But no one should have a problem accepting that business enterprises are not philanthropic organisations but are for making money .And pilots are in it for enhancing it to enhances their earnings in return. It applies to pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, luxury goods everything. As long as humans add to safety they will definitely be there. But if humans become the problem and technology gives solutions then their role will get restricted.

Fursty Ferret

29th Jun 2021, 15:10

It's an interesting idea but they won't be seeking approval for single-pilot operation: they need approval for zero pilot operations during cruise. When I leave the flight deck to take my morning dump, then it either needs to be left empty but locked (that'll be a laugh if the keypad fails) or with a member of cabin crew in it, which is laughable from a security perspective. Or you extend the flight deck backwards so that the bunks and toilet are enclosed but then you'll lose galley space, access from doors 1, and several rows of seats.

Or you could just have two pilots.

Airmann

29th Jun 2021, 23:56

At the end of the day planes won’t be required. Because everything in the world will be automated and there will be no jobs for humans, at which point there will only be billionaires and machines, all humans will be dead, except for a few slaves to entertain the billionaires, and a few scientists to monitor and maintain the machines.

ATC Watcher

30th Jun 2021, 07:39

Nice science fiction theory but I will offer one note of optimism , I read a few years ago an interesting remark : Robots do not vote, buy things and pay taxes ...You need lots of humans with money to keep the system going.. Automation has its political limits ..
But single man operations ? that is coming , it is now a question of when rather that if ..

Less Hair

30th Jun 2021, 07:46

I'd dare to speculate it will have to be either fully automated or operated by two pilots. Mixing philosophies is a dangerous thing.
However we are not at fully automated for passenger flights and won't be for some time. The most likely thing to happen first might be some unmanned "slave" aircraft, like a freighter, following some manned aircraft in automated close formation like a bot.

ATC Watcher

30th Jun 2021, 08:38

But the second pilot must not be physically in the aircraft , but on the ground serving multiple "airborne" pilots . That is at least what the NASA Conops study implies . The RPA/ UAV emerging technologies are slowly coming into play , not advocating it, just making the remark .
As to the freighter following a pax , Airbus already works on that one , together with their " Fello' fly" project. I am going to watch the first tests soon , looks like fun ..

Airmann

23rd Aug 2021, 20:22

Interesting paper by some guys at RMIT Melbourne just popped into my inbox via acedemia.edu . Explains the pathway toward single pilot operations.

Commercial Airline Single-Pilot Operations: System Design and Pathways to Certification (https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/54695559/IEEE_AESM_SiPO_Repository.pdf?1507791546=&response-content-disposition=attachment%3B+filename%3DCommercial_Airline_Sing le_Pilot_Operatio.pdf&Expires=1629753269&Signature=PamLDBhAM5lb34ORLzukyy~cqEqaePJyq-tqeTZbsAGa-l7HbqFwnSWAUxFJq4CML0PadrhHnuTC5LtgjqKdb-frMkKj5~CsNLPDC68YYpTvwWahUIxhfXQVN-t15yzgz2ZO1CchADaS9L1MBov7VPgUsKQqzzmdhVzGgFdS-3K586J-ZX2j5vG8E5AgpJEZQbvvXHElWF8XuUw~wiS5YVd5gXUp9w5F7fpNg2WK2fOq 6Bpku8YU6f-VlYAd4fYvnF-ZnotO7HTv9Qrslj5uvdEVjsE2RgA01M2s7CU3dvbPczE97mRKw3WOdytOMvH Sqg3ZAcLMvfkBP3-gsOzFng__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA)

barleyhi

24th Aug 2021, 06:12

Link not working

DaveReidUK

24th Aug 2021, 06:30

Link (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8039185) to an abstract of the article. Full text is behind a paywall.

beardy

24th Aug 2021, 07:57

The authors are all engineers. The paper was published in 2017

calypso

24th Aug 2021, 07:57

Published in 2017 referencing data from 2016. It has rained a bit since then.....

neville_nobody

24th Aug 2021, 08:18

I always find these scenarios amusing. Boeing justify dishing out a 1970s system architecture in a 737 on cost yet somehow these guys completely change everything from the rules to the systems to the method of operating and claim that it's 'cheaper'. It's going to be cheaper and safer to pay pilots a little more than reinvent the whole wheel. It would also be cheaper if manufacturers actually built 'modern' aircraft however that doesn't ever come into the equation. A320s are 80s aeroplane and the 737 from the 60's. Some change in regulation might help too. Why do we spend so much time in the sim? Why can we cut some of that back? Especially for more experienced crews.

Uplinker

24th Aug 2021, 10:57

Bottom line is: who is actually asking for cheaper flights and cheaper crew costs?

Most customers will click on the cheaper fare - it's human nature - but most customers will not know how that cheaper fare has become possible and what corners have been cut. If they did, they might well avoid some operators.

Pilots already have to work longer hours between breaks than HGV truck drivers - (which seems odd, because pilots have to deal with the emergency correctly to literally stay alive, whereas HGV drivers operate in only two dimensions, and at any sign of trouble, can simply stop and get out of the truck in less than a minute).

How will a single pilot deal with an explosive decompression if they don't get their oxygen mask on, or something happens to their mask?

Technology has enabled us to retire the engineer, the navigator and the radio operator from the flight deck, but having less than two pilots is a saving too far.

How will a German wings suicide scenario be prevented with a single pilot? I can imagine the scenes at the destination airport after a crash; with families of passengers crying and asking 'how was this even possible?'.

Costs have already been cut to below what is sensible in my opinion. The number of incidents involving basic mistakes in recent years points towards pilot, training and engineering costs having been cut too far already. The regulators need to say no !

vilas

24th Aug 2021, 11:36

Uplinker
There may other complications but I will answer two specific questions raised by you. A350 can do EMER DES without any intervention from pilot and includes all the actions that pilot may do. German wings case is a rare occurrence and I don't think it's avoidable with two in front. The more common occurrence is, Rostov on don with two in front and one on the left going crazy and copilot unable to prevent the crash. Atlas air with two in front and one on the right going crazy and the captain unable to prevent the crash or like in Paris in a A350, three of them in front with a false WS ahead warning, all three going crazy and forgetting the AP is off just hit TOGA and nobody flies the aircraft for sometime causing excursion on to the other RW, busting Go around altitude. Some human factor is pulled out of the hat to close the case. I posted before that humans are in the front to use their skills to save the situation but when serviceable aircraft without any mitigation are crashed by those in front then it defeats the purpose of having them there. Human factors is a bad advertisement for human presence. So technology says if you cannot change humans then replace them.

longlayover

24th Aug 2021, 12:28

The Question is, how do you train the one pilot left in a one crew cockpit, if the pilot under training is also in the cockpit with the more experienced pilot, then there is no savings 🤷‍♂️

Lookleft

25th Aug 2021, 04:28

German wings case is a rare occurrence and I don't think it's avoidable with two in front.

There is a reason its a rare event (although its not an isolated event), because you do have two in front. In the pilot suicide examples. Germanwings, Silk Air, Egypt Air and MH370, the two pilots have had to become single pilot in the cockpit for the suicide to happen. All Airbus are doing is creating exactly the environment that a pilot with mental health problems requires to end their anguish.

vilas

25th Aug 2021, 06:08

Even with two pilots one goes out to toilet. I am not sure all airlines follow policy of bringing in a cabin crew for that, even that is just to open the door. But cabin crew who don't know flying cannot prevent a repeat of German wings because a 737 can be put on it's back in seconds. And if the reason for these rare occurrences is only due to second guy, you are suggesting that a great number of pilots are mentally disturbed and just waiting for an opportunity to kill themselves. Surely that's not the case.

Lookleft

25th Aug 2021, 06:34

How many ATPL's are there in the world? What is the percentage of the population with serious mental health issues? Having the cockpit occupied by a single pilot for hours at a time is not how you want to discover if there is a great number of pilots are mentally disturbed and just waiting for an opportunity to kill themselves
There is also the elephant in the room and that is COVID. Pilots have been hit particularly hard with border closures and stand downs. In the US as air travel has recovered and they are wearing the brunt of over enthusiastic schedules with the result that they are having rosters disrupted and at times been left standing at the kerb waiting for non-existent transport to unmade hotel bookings. So thinking that we all just go back to 2019 as though nothing has happened and everyone is fine is naive at best and dangerous at the extreme end. So the last thing you want to do is have pilots isolated and in the dark.

LessThanSte

25th Aug 2021, 07:30

I'm currently doing a post-grad management course, and have access to the university's library. This discussion piqued my interest so I went on a hunt, and I've found the article referenced above. Next on the list of journal articles was an article entitled 'Passenger attitudes to flying on a single-pilot commercial aircraft', from the Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors journal. The abstract says this; The feedback from the focus groups highlighted distrust in technology, concerns about pilot health and workload, and the need for more information on single-pilot operations but also that if there were substantial savings passengers may be willing to fly on such an aircraft. The results of the survey suggested three main dimensions to passenger opinion on the subject: state of the pilot; trust in the technology; ticket price and reputation. Responses on these scales could determine with some certainty passengers' willingness to fly or not to fly on a single-pilot airliner.
Which, I think, seems to sum up pretty much what everyone expected!

See Passenger Attitudes to Flying on a Single-Pilot Commercial Aircraft | Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (hogrefe.com) (https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/2192-0923/a000164)

Uplinker

25th Aug 2021, 09:52

vilas cites some sobering examples of poor piloting. Yes, we should remove poor pilots from the flight deck - but not leaving just one pilot ! Single pilot operations is the wrong cure for the problem. We already know how to fix this with the technology we already have: Well trained, properly examined, well rested, reasonably rostered teams of pilots, backed-up with well trained, well rested engineering and operations departments and ground crews.

What seems to have been happening is that in the push for ever lower fares, all aspects of airliner flying have been gradually eroded to where we are now; that some pilots are too tired or are just not very good pilots. Training and examining has been reduced so perhaps more marginal pilots are getting through.

And it seems ironic that to even get to an airline interview these days, one has to pass ever more ridiculous psychometric tests and written essays; none of which I have ever had to do - or even consider - on a flight deck while flying a plane !

With auto TCAS, auto EMER DES, and automatic single pilot cockpits, etc, maybe it will not be so important to airline managements that a pilot must be well rested, have good hand eye coordination, calmness in emergencies and good flying ability.

For 99% of flights, the airline managements might get away with that, but for the 1% when the automatics fail or a Qantas A380 engine explodes or a BA 747 flies through a dust cloud, stopping all engines, (which those (multi-pilot) crews managed to work through and land safely)............are managements thinking it would be a reasonable risk?

BizJetJock

25th Aug 2021, 09:58

You're making the mistake of thinking that the cost saving is just the salary. The cost to the company of the employee, by the time you have social security costs, admin costs, training costs etc is typically at least twice what they actually get paid. And in this era of people expecting tickets for next to nothing, then saving $48 per ticket is potentialy the difference between the company being there next year and not.

neville_nobody

25th Aug 2021, 10:33

But what's the cost of reinventing the wheel? The aircraft will cost more up front. You now need all this new regulation. Insurance has a big question mark over it. Software development will need a complete and total cultural change and become Human Factors critical. No more of this "just ship it and we'll patch it up when they find the bugs in the middle of the night over the ocean" The cost of that will be exponential to the current "lowest bidder" mentality.

In reality I think it will ultimately achieve nothing but just shift a whole bunch of risk and cost around from one area to another.

tdracer

25th Aug 2021, 18:45

When Boeing was developing the 767 (~1978-1982), the FAA released their study that said that a 2 crew flight deck was just as safe as 3 crew. Boeing went to the launch customers and asked if they'd fess up $500,000/aircraft for an EICAS equipped 2 crew instead of a 3 crew. Every customer immediately responded YES! (except Ansett - and that was apparently union related). They said break-even for crew costs was just over a year - and that was early 80's - figure ~4x that in today's money. The costs to do it are largely non-recurring - so once the airframer has done the development the delta cost to each additional aircraft is small.
Not saying it's the right thing to do (I have mixed feelings), just pointing out the economics.
BTW, while the presence of another pilot may help discourage a potentially suicidal pilot, if a pilot decides they really want to crash the aircraft, having a second (or third) pilot is unlikely to stop them. Going full nose down close to the ground will suffice (e.g. Atlas 3591, although I don't think that was intentional).

vilas

26th Aug 2021, 07:50

tdracer
Exactly my views. As pilots we forget that commercial aviation is a business first, everything else comes after that because a failed airline sends every one home. Safety of single pilot operation cannot be considered in isolation but is a comparable issue. Will it be safer than present situation? Accident happen with machines also but will they be less than due to errors of humans in the seat? Most pilot don't take this into consideration. I am repeatedly saying that pilot has to justify his presence in the cockpit. If one looks at the crashes that are happening in General Aviation and part 135 it's bad news. Passengers will travel if fares are cheap. Many will take as an adventure.

1201alarm

26th Aug 2021, 08:47

tdracer, as usual an interesting insight from your obvious longtime industry experience, thanks for that.

However, on the specific subject of autonomuous-flying-economies, I think you underestimate the rise in complexity, cost, maintenance and downtime of a more autonomuous aviation system.

Replacing the redundancy of two well trained pilots (who are capable to deal on the spot with the myriads of hickups a complex aviation system endures every day) with software and automatic hardware is a fundamental change in the design and operation of our aviation system. I do not see this as cheaper than two pilots, quite the opposite.

Indeed I think that the evolution is coming to an end here - except may be single pilot CRUISE could still be achieved.

Uplinker

26th Aug 2021, 10:19

Hi tdracer, Absolutely; we don't need a separate radio operator, a separate navigator, or a separate radar operator in the cockpit, any more, and we usually don't need a flying engineer. Technology has improved so much that those roles can be performed to a reasonable safety standard by two pilots.

My argument is against less than two pilots. Two should be the absolute minimum in my opinion. If we go to one pilot and that pilot goes faulty, what then? OK, the aircraft might be able to autonomously descend to FL 100, and possibly even turn towards the closest planned ETOPS alternate. But what then? Even ILS Auto-lands - that we have been doing for years - need a lot of pilot input and monitoring. How would the authorities allow an aircraft to autonomously descend, approach, and land with a single incapacitated pilot?

Single cruise pilot ? Well, if there is a serious problem, the other pilot can be woken up and take control? That did not work well for AF447, and it's hard to see how that would work with an explosive decompression, or an engine blow up like the Qantas A380.

I acknowledge the push for ever lower prices, but to what end? All that does is persuade people to fly when they would otherwise have used land transport or holidayed in their own country. Pushing prices down encourages more people to fly - it creates a market, as Ryanair have done. But who actually, really benefits?

Would anyone seriously consider building a single-engined airliner to cross an ocean? It would be cheaper.

vilas

26th Aug 2021, 16:03

UplinkerYou cannot take any aircraft and remove one pilot. Definitely it has to have better redundancies. A350 is moving towards that. Unreliable speed, TCAS, EMER DES is handled automatically. In dual engine flame out auto pilot is available. Something more may be in the offing. I repeat again accidents will happen. On another day with three sitting in front A350 incident in Paris would have resulted in a midair. I said before that all apprehensions are justified but it is happening because humans do not seem to guarantee safety. At worst with unusual problem aircraft will crash. It crashes even now without any problem.

Lookleft

26th Aug 2021, 23:31

vilas you are assuming that the technology required for this airline accountants wet dream is free from the contamination of human input. Software is developed and tested by people and they are subject to the same frailties that you think can be eliminated from the flight deck. It has already been tried and spectacularly failed in the 777. Boeing thought that they could save the airlines money by producing a fault tolerant ADIRU in the 777. It was supposed to be that reliable that an airline would never have to take the unit off the aircraft for repairs. It was tested against the requirements and found to be fully compliant with all the relevant standards. The only thing was it couldn't be tested against any scenarios that the developers could not think of. When something does happen that was not anticipated then you need some analogue biology to counter the digital stuff up.This is what was written when a 777 and its crew had that happen to them:

ADIRU design and checklist items
The B777 aircraft was designed to achieve a level of serviceability and system redundancy that would allow operators to reduce maintenance costs. The air data
inertial reference unit (ADIRU), with its fault-tolerant design and advances in software capability, was a significant part of that design philosophy. The built-in
redundancy was designed to allow for deferred maintenance on the ADIRU and to reduce the flight crew actions required in responding to any fault within the unit.
An internal failure would not be apparent to the flight crew during normal operations, other than through an Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System
(EICAS) status message. The B777 Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) did not, and could not, include ‘…checklists for all conceivable situations…’. Therefore, the
aircraft manufacturer did not include an AIRSPEED UNRELIABLE checklist in the B777 QRH.
When the upset event occurred and the primary flight display indicated an underspeed, then an overspeed condition, as well as the slip/skid indicator showing
full right deflection, the crew experienced a situation that had previously been considered not possible. The primary flight display pitch and roll indications, and
the standby instrument indications were not affected by the failure of the accelerometer within the ADIRU, but the crew were not sure which indications
were correct.
ADIRU operational program software The certification of the ADIRU operational program software (OPS) was dependent
on it being tested against the requirements specified in the initial design. The conditions involved in this event were not identified in the testing requirements, so
were not tested. The mitigating effects of the mid-value select and secondary attitude and air-data reference unit on the primary flight computer response to the erroneous
accelerometer outputs was not an intended function, but did prevent a more severe upset event from occurring.

Thats just one specific component and you are suggesting that many more functions can be automated and perform flawlessly throughout the life of the aircraft! There is a very good reason why a major airline like Lufthansa do not consider the single pilot concept to be safe or worthwhile pursuing.

Uplinker

27th Aug 2021, 09:02

Hi vilas yes, obviously, aircraft will have to become semi-autonomous but no matter how much autonomy an aircraft might have, it could still suffer an engine turbine failure that takes out multiple other systems, such as the Qantas A380, or the Sioux City DC -10. Or a decompression. Or an avionics fire.

That's when you need two, well rested, well trained pilots on the flight deck. Having one pilot in the cockpit and another asleep in the cabin is not going to work well for such emergencies. That would be like shutting down an engine during the cruise to save money ! (in a twin). Very foolhardy.

Yes, pilots make mistakes, and, frankly, there have been far too many basic piloting mistakes in recent years - I am as appalled about that as you probably are.

But that is because training and examining have become diluted, so that marginal, and under-skilled pilots are now on the flight deck, in charge of passenger aircraft.

The simple solution is not to spend countless billions on developing autonomous aircraft, but spend some millions on better training and examining of pilots - to make sure that only competent skilled pilots get onto the flight deck in the first place.

Obviously no airline or aircraft manufacturer is going to listen to me though :)

safetypee

27th Aug 2021, 13:57

Uplinker, shared reality;
The human contribution in safety approaches its limit; best to focus on maintaining the current level with training.
Humans cannot be considered as machines; not every training scenario can be foreseen or practiced, and that which is, can never guarantee to have well rested, well trained pilots with reliably memory, requisite situation assessment, and decision making.

Who pays; operators have difficulty in balancing current training budgets, increases unlikely to be passed on to the customer.
For technical solitions, manufactures should be able to absorb some cost, if there are advantages from reduced cost of operation, particularly with new aircraft - more sales. Similarly operators with reduced operating cost.

There are two distinctly separate concepts:- single pilot throughout the flight for commercial operations is distant, requiring new designs and certification standards.
Limited single pilot operations should be feasible with today's technology and certification; proof of concept required - AI & operators.
The certification of modern aircraft includes single pilot operation in considering incapacitation - continued flight and landing.

Thence as per slast.
Defeatist hypothetical scenarios are easy to imagine, but first assess these against certification requirements which are probability based; a realisation that not everything can be avoided or managed, but that which is, provides an acceptable level of safety in an uncertain world. Any new concept has to heed this.
A better understanding of the issues could be gained by considering how these new concepts can be achieved; how can systems be designed, tested, and certificated. Use the expertise of current operations and pilots to solve problems, not create flimsy barriers to inevitable progress.

slast

27th Aug 2021, 15:28

Safetypee, yes you are right, I was really only referring to the idea of autonomy: the extract from uplinker I wanted to quote seemed to have gone AWOL, which rathe defeated the point! I've put it back now.
As far as single pilot cruise is concerned, how much is "controlled napping" allowed now?

Uplinker

29th Aug 2021, 10:24

Flimsy barriers? Inevitable "progress"? Defeatist !

Good luck with it - you're going to need a huge amount of good luck.

calypso

29th Aug 2021, 11:06

It is easy to look at an specific accident, point out the limitations of the pilot on that occasion and conclude the best option is to eliminate the pilot. What is missing in that logic is the times the machine malfunctions and it is the pilot intervention that saves the day. It is the relationship between the number of those two types of occurrences that should determine if the pilot is removed or not. With current equipment there must be ten of thousands of human interventions that save the day for each one that makes the situation worse. We have a loooooong way to go before we get to break even.

safetypee

29th Aug 2021, 15:12

calypso: :ok:

Re ‘What is missing in that logic is the times the machine malfunctions and it is the pilot intervention that saves the day.’ Yes; …
Reinterpreting this as the need for ‘understanding’ - knowledge of these issues and interventions, requires looking at and recording normal work, human adaptation, how often things go right.
This is widely discussed in ‘Safety II’ and ‘Resilience’; complementary ways of thinking about safety and everyday operations - view the human as an asset.

A significant point is the number of situations which might be encountered in modern aircraft (probability) and how many actually require two crew - need vs nice; and if two; what is the residual risk - time available for the resting pilot, vs a non-pilot in the other seat, getting back to the cockpit.

Uplinker

2nd Sep 2021, 08:19

We had GEN 1, (A321), go intermittent while in the cruise, about an hour out of our UK base - full output, no output, full output, no output etc. As quickly as it takes to say that. The shock loading on the engine made a sound like back-firing - bang bang bang.

To start with, we didn't know what had gone wrong and the ECAM and the cockpit warning lights and the single chime were chaotically going on and off like a Christmas tree, making no sense, and we could not follow the ECAM instructions at all - everything kept changing so rapidly. The aircraft could not cope, Cap lost all his instruments, and the aircraft spat out the A/P and the A/THR. So I took control and flew manually, with manual thrust.

Cap was trying to make sense of what was happening, but he couldn't, because it was changing so rapidly. Out of the corner of my eye, I noticed - during the fractions of a second that the ELEC page was displayed - that there seemed to be something amber in the region of GEN 1. With my electronics background, I realised what might be the problem, and I suggested to the Cap that we switch off GEN 1 completely.

This he did and all became calm and we could finally understand what had happened. We started the APU, restored the A/P etc, and continued home.

Whilst it was very disturbing, we were never in immediate danger and were over land, near many airfields, not over the middle of an ocean. But the fault rendered the on-board diagnostic ECAM useless, and it took two pilots to sort out the problem: One to hand-fly, the other to reconfigure the aircraft, and both to work out what the problem was.

Would a semi-autonomous aircraft cope if its electrical supply became compromised?

slast

2nd Sep 2021, 09:27

Exactly the sort of event I referred to in a post which seems to have been deleted.
Did this get investigated as a serious incident?
Is there any investigation report?

Chris2303

4th Sep 2021, 08:48

And here, ladies and gentleman, is an excellent reason to retain two qualified pilots on the flightdeck.

Incident: Biman B738 near Nagpur on Aug 27th 2021, captain incapacitated and later died

Incident: Biman B738 near Nagpur on Aug 27th 2021, captain incapacitated and later died (http://avherald.com/h?article=4ecb532d&opt=0)

FlightDetent

4th Sep 2021, 11:34

Yes, present day aircraft require 2 pilots. No surprise.

Present day technology, not installed on present day aircraft, is already capable to overcome the challenges.

All the cases listed above included, the HF kills more people these days than it saves. Problem with humans is we cannot be elevated to a higher level of sentient beings. Less prone to error, more emotionally stable, easier to replicate (cross-generation training), repairable.

The future aircraft case to consider:
- autonomously capable
- remotely piloted
- locally supervised on-board by 1 ex-pilot, System Reliability Assurance Engineer.

The F/E's told us to be back. :eek:

vilas

4th Sep 2021, 14:40

Within a year Air bus is introducing a robust AP that won't trip outside the envelope i.e. alpha prot but take action to come out with intimation on FMA. AP will be available with unreliable speed, ADR 1+2+3 Fail. And an alternate AP will be available which will maintain VS0, Hdg and ATHR will maintain a fixed speed. So coming decade will give a clear idea where aviation is heading.

BizJetJock

4th Sep 2021, 15:29

the HF kills more people these days than it saves
Sorry, but anyone who actually flies knows that this statement is nonsense with current technology. For every high profile HF related incident/accident there are hundreds if not thousands of "saves" by crew working well.
I have no doubt that one day we will see single pilot and autonomous airliners, but we have a long way to go to that point. People, especially the techno-geeks, get blinded by the capabilities of their new toy while forgetting about 1) reliability and 2) the fact that not all the world has the necessary infrastructure. We've had autoland technology since the 60s, but what proportion of airports have Cat3 on every runway? I'd love to see some of this autonomous technology cope with African ATC...

calypso

4th Sep 2021, 15:33

the HF kills more people these days than it saves

Do you have a data source for that statement?

FlightDetent

4th Sep 2021, 17:01

BizJetJock

Also not what I said

Thought-provoking statement, hopefully. Crew working well don't enter the equation, the crew today working beyond what the Future Gen setup is able to deliver is what fits the comparison. What you call saves are HF solutions to situations rooted in the presence of the necessary but unsupervised and uncontrolled HF element onboard to begin with.

BTW don't omit the remote piloted part, please. Three standalone layers as opposed to a single layer of 2 humans now.
Even Uplinker's case is admitted to be a one-man save, is it not?
+ autonomous
+ remotely piloted from C&C
+ on-board supervised with live (single) backup.

UPS 6
Air Canada snowplough @ SFO

Were those saves or kills? Only through huge luck is how those did not become the largest disasters of all aviation time.

On-board HF will lose the reliability battle through a long-term continuous improvement programme of the HW and SW solutions, still controlled by human operator teams, remotely.

FlightDetent

4th Sep 2021, 17:04

vilas

Yes.

And the Future Gen (cargo first) airliner with enough system integration to take advantage of that will be built around 2035 with design-useable life of 2040-2080. My suggested setup will be probably viewed as overly conservative then.

FlightDetent

4th Sep 2021, 17:11

calypso

you start. JACDEC is a good source for inspiration.

Send one example where HF did a save that today's tech onboard future installation would not be able to. I'll equal that and then we take turns.

For handicapping, be invited to choose how to restric my scope. Either the "west" accidents of the past (historical HF) or the "asian" accidents of present (HF of the next three decades).

1201alarm

4th Sep 2021, 18:57

FlightDetent, not wanting to push down your credibility, merely trying to understand where your reasoning is coming from: are you or have you been a professional pilot with an airline?

For me as a professional pilot in an airline it is hard to follow what you are saying. Every day I go to work we as a crew make dozens of decision to get the job done in a non-ideal, real-world, complex aviation environment. I don't see software to be able to manage that, also not with so called "future" technology, because it would still have to fit into the non-ideal, real-world, complex aviation environment.

noalign

4th Sep 2021, 19:33

People hold out AF447 as a pilot failure but seem to forget they were responding to a complex systems failure. The BAE report lists 13 other occurrences of the same system failure with different outcomes. If the report captured 13 occurrences, how many have/had occurred fleet wide, that were mitigated successfully by those up front?

calypso

5th Sep 2021, 07:39

When you say "todays tech" you mean that fabulous tech in your mind that hasn't been invented yet? difficult to provide examples of that right now.

FullWings

5th Sep 2021, 08:46

I have no doubt that fully autonomous passenger aircraft will be a reality at some time in the future. However, anything involving AI is going to need a fundamental re-think of all the certification processes as we will be replacing systems that have been engineered, tested and sometimes formally proven, with inscrutable black boxes. The “any day now” self-driving car of the last decade shows how non-trivial these kind of problems are, and that’s in something that can just stop if it can’t work out what’s going on and doesn’t have the huge potential for collateral damage that an airliner has...

3Greens

5th Sep 2021, 16:34

FlightDetent

on my last flight on a two week old 321NEO (possibly one of the modest modern tech aircraft in the sky) my colleague picked up due to SOPs that I had forgotten to set QNH on the PFD. We were about to conduct an RNAV approach so if this hadn’t been picked up, the aircraft won’t auto set QNH, and consequently all the constraints on the STAR and the final approach path would have been dangerously below profile. Now granted, you could programme an auto GPWS pull up that an autonomous aircraft would be able to perform but how would it set the QNH or even know the QNH?
tech will be very good at mitigating but not at thinking ahead and making decisions that will avoid the need to mitigate.

megan

5th Sep 2021, 21:35

In your brave new world of autonomous aircraft with no pilots on board who is going to take on the responsibilities currently demanded of the PIC?
Australia CAR extract

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and
(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and
(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and
(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

procede

6th Sep 2021, 09:27

Where does it say the PIC should be on board and cannot be PIC of multiple aircraft at the same time?
Also, d is not applicable with no one on board, so it will definitely work with cargo only operations.

procede

6th Sep 2021, 09:33

3Greens

Would ATC not have also warned you about this? I thought Mode-S includes altimeter settings.

Uplinker

6th Sep 2021, 11:40

Just seems to me that in the history of commercial airliner flying since Ernest Gann's "Fate is the Hunter" days, and after analysis of scores of accidents; the authorities, airlines and manufacturers gradually worked out how to fly safely.

But in recent years accidents - involving standard manoeuvres - seem to be on the increase because airlines appear to be reducing that safety layer by reducing pilots' and engineers' rest, training and testing. And some manufacturers have produced compromised aircraft modifications - all in the pursuit of ever cheaper passenger seat costs. As I say, who really benefits?

And now we are talking about single-pilot operations. We seem to be going backwards, safety-wise.

Less Hair

6th Sep 2021, 14:30

We seem to move back from redundancy. Not the way to go.

BoeingDriver99

6th Sep 2021, 15:44

I am amused by the illogical assertion that a two week old 321 is “modern” having first flown as the 320 in what… 1988? That’s what, 33 years ago? Designed and built for a two human crew environment.

It’s almost like saying a freshly rebuilt warbird is state of the art fighter tech because it was finished and flown first this year.

3Greens

6th Sep 2021, 22:21

BoeingDriver99

I guess the change from
the Original 320 to a 321 NEO is lost on you then hey. They are vastly differant

procede

mode s transmits selected Altitude. It does not transit the pressure setting set on the PFDs by the pilots.

BoeingDriver99

7th Sep 2021, 04:00

Enlighten me. The 321 NEO is more efficient and has been tweaked incrementally over time. But it’s based on 1980s design philosophy and regulations. Name three differences between a 2021 NEO and the 1988 A320 that have an impact on this discussion?

FlyingStone

7th Sep 2021, 04:14

3Greens

Can you even preselect QNH on this state of the art aircraft?

compressor stall

10th Sep 2021, 09:06

3 greens.

Have a read of the 321 TCDS and let us know what underlying FAR the 321 NEO is certificated under.

Less Hair

10th Sep 2021, 09:13

If only one pilot is left in the flight deck wouldn't we need like a camera link to the flight crew rest and system and nav/weather displays in the back to give the second guy the immediate big picture? What happens with a broken windscreen, cockpit fires and such?
Even AF447 with a full crew left not enough time for the captain to regain situational awareness/control after he had to be called back from the crewrest.

I think it is generally wrong to use a cockpit layout made for two with only one person at work.

zlin77

10th Sep 2021, 11:44

What happens if Left/Right seat PF has a subtle incapacitation while their cohort is in crew rest?

Ancient Observer

10th Sep 2021, 12:15

I suspect that plane drivers might do a little more than Stan from On the Buses. Plus, given the issues with autonomous driving of cars etc in 2D, one suspects that 3 D might be a little more difficult.

ATC Watcher

10th Sep 2021, 13:34

BoeingDriver99 : I think 3greens mean cockpit automation rather than aircraft design , but I let him or her reply .

I will make myself the devil's advocate here . We had these heated discussions a few times before internet existed : first in the early 70s when the Navigator was replaced by the Inertial platforms and in the 80s where Airbus removed the FE from the A310.

For me as ATC the number of incidents I saw in my career caused by crews that would not had happened if the automation was switched on and/or had been followed is quite remarkable. I include EGPWS alerts here . Of course the number of incidents caused by faulty automation and prevented by crews is not recorded in the same way.

One remark however : we had and still have a very high number of TCAS incidents caused by crews not reacting or following TCAS RAs correctly . But none involving the A380 and 350s. why? because they have the RAs linked to the FD and those are flown automatically. One of the most tragic collision in recent time, Ueberlingen would not have happened if automation had been available.
But as I said ,am the devil's advocate here, I prefer and support the 4 eyes principle , both in the air and on the ground (ATC)

given the issues with autonomous driving of cars etc in 2D, one suspects that 3 D might be a little more difficult. not really as the drone industry clearly demonstrates, but we are not talking about autonomous flight here , just reducing the number of the crew.

tdracer

10th Sep 2021, 18:11

zlin77

The driver assist features have systems that monitor the driver to make sure they are still paying attention - and if they are not alerts them and disconnects.
It should be relatively easy to incorporate some sort of system that monitors the PF for signs of subtle incapacitation - and if sensed would alert the resting pilot that they better get back to the flight deck ASAP.

The automotive automation is leaning heavily on what's been learned from aviation automation/pilot interactions. As automotive automation advances and overtakes aviation (which it will), that should become a two way street.

averow

11th Sep 2021, 02:26

Good points ATC Watcher thank you. As just a lowly private pilot and self loading freight I don't think I would ever board a long distance commercial flight with one pilot in the front, no matter what the level of "electronic assistance" was available. I'm ok with solo bush piloting, solo short helicopter trips etc, but with GermanWings and now of course the anniversary of 09/11 coming up a solo pilot on a typical commercial flight is just inviting terrorism.

Less Hair

11th Sep 2021, 05:40

More than one of everything is needed for redundancy. From airliner engines to hydraulic systems to pilots. Going from three to two pilots might be okay somehow but below two is not enough anymore.
Using a cockpit environment made for two pilots with only one pilot in the room is just dangerous. If a single pilot environment is wanted for some reason the entire cockpit must be made for it and certified from the beginning. I can't imagine to see that happen in an airliner. Realistic failure scenarios have to include electrical failures, physical damage and fires with no automation and no datalinks left. This is when you need more than one pilot. In the cockpit not just on the plane. We have seen with the first lion MAX event and with Qantas A380 how much better some enhanced crew could handle unexpected events.

Saving costs by just cutting layers of redundancy would be a quite a paradigm change in aviation.

vilas

11th Sep 2021, 12:14

BoeingDriver99

Design philosophy doesn't need to change. It's the automation and system redundancies that change. A350 also has same basic philosophy as a 320 but it has automatic TCAP, TCAS, Auto EMER DES, automatic handling of unreliable air speed, AP availability in degraded mode and even after dual ening fail. So that's a lot different isn't it?

BoeingDriver99

11th Sep 2021, 22:03

Yes vilas; very different. That’s why they went ahead and gave it a new number and everything.

Commander Taco

12th Sep 2021, 01:13

Vilas said: “So that's a lot different isn't it?”

Guaranteed to work 100% of the time? Just so, you know, the bloke left all by himself can cope. And the other bloke rushing up to the flight deck, bleary-eyed and only half awake, has the time to become alert and rapidly assess the situation. What could possibly go wrong?

Lookleft

12th Sep 2021, 02:25

I am reminded of the scene from the movie "A Bridge Too Far" when General Sosabowski says to "Boy" Browning, who has just presented his plan to take 3 bridges over a 65 mile stretch of road, "the Germans General, what about the Germans?" All said with a truly appalling Polish accent by Gene Hackman. With statements such as:

Cars operate in a chaotic, unpredictable environment in very close proximity to other cars/pedestrians/obstructions which are operated by chaotic, unpredictable individuals many of whom are not competent, whereas aircraft operate in a tightly controlled environment,

the question that needs to be asked is "The weather, what about the weather?" I am going to make a broad assumption that the person making the quoted statement is an engineer of some description and not an airline pilot. Even in a country like Oz with weather considered to reasonably benign thunderstorms, passing cold fronts and unforecast fog very quickly turns a "tightly controlled" environment into the chaos that they associate with road transport. It always is assumed that the aircraft are simply flown from point A to point B without any deviation or variation demanded by ATC. What Airbus is proposing is not a great leap in technology but a significant change to regulation. The great leap in technology is still many decades away. When I see the major manufacturers announce the design and production of an autonomous airliner with commitments from the airlines only then can the tech heads claim victory over analogue biology in the flight deck.

Busbuoy

12th Sep 2021, 06:29

I find it humourous that what Cathay essentially wants to do is have one pilot take "controlled rest" in a separate rest facility (i.e. one that will take significant time and resources to be awakened in and return to the cockpit from) when, until recently, this was only allowed for short periods of time (so as to prevent sleep inertia) and in the cockpit (so as to be able to respond quickly to a situation requiring 2 crew input).
They want to able to do it in the A350, an aircraft that currently operates under the extant "controlled rest" provisions and have Airbus sort out all the problems associated with this major philosophical shift from the at-hand-sleep-inertia-mitigating-controlled-rest provisions to the remote-deep-sleep proposal.
And all to cater for reduced pilot numbers. Because they won't be to able to retain or attract crew in the future.

parabellum

13th Sep 2021, 11:06

fergusd said:fully automated planes are more than possible,
but still not probable.

Even if the normal Hulls and Liabilities insurance market will accept them, which is a big ask, the War Risks insurance market won't until the threat of hostile intervention of the control systems of fully automated aircraft has been 99.9% eliminated. Good luck with that!

Less Hair

13th Sep 2021, 12:02

It might be way more easy to start this with freighters as passenger acceptance for any trial is far from guaranteed.

Lookleft

14th Sep 2021, 04:57

Maybe not LH as there are very few cargo aeroplanes that don't start out as passenger aircraft. If an operator wanted to alter the minimum crew requirement of an existing design then it would have to be recertified. If Airbus develop a pilotless version of the Beluga then I will accept that manufacturers are pushing ahead with their vision of the future and not just spending tax deductible R&D money.

Lookleft

16th Sep 2021, 01:40

While I see the point about arguments over Navs and Flight Engineer's their role was primarily to support the two pilots. Now that they are gone from the flight deck the support role is done by the two pilots suporting each other when one is PM and one is PF. The support is provided by someone who is physically present which is a much safer option than someone providing support via a datalink that is not guaranteed to be reliable or available 100% of the time.

Chris2303

16th Sep 2021, 02:13

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-cathay-working-with-airbus-single-pilot-system-long-haul-2021-06-16/

Airbus and Cathay will start tests on having only one pilot in the cockpit during Cruise on A350. Target a launch date of 2025.

This was the start of this thread.

Why are we discussing single pilot ops for takeoff and landing?

NutLoose

16th Sep 2021, 06:50

Because

https://www.euractiv.com/section/aviation/news/pilots-alarmed-over-airbus-plans-for-single-pilot-aircraft/

Two scenarios are currently being discussed with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the EU flight regulatory authority: ‘extended minimum crew operations’ and ‘single pilot operations’.

Under the former, one pilot would occupy the cockpit during non-critical portions of the flight, such as while cruising, while the other pilot rests. The pilots would then alternate with one another – a scenario likely to be used during ultra-long-haul flights.

Under the latter, only one pilot would be onboard, including during take-off and landing. In this scenario the plane would be empowered to fly itself during periods where the pilot was away from the cockpit, such as during toilet breaks.

Contacted by EURACTIV, EASA said the new concepts would only be approved if they provide an equivalent or higher level of safety to the two-pilot requirement currently in effect

Less Hair

16th Sep 2021, 07:27

How can non redundant be an equivalent or higher level of safety?

Krapula

16th Sep 2021, 17:45

Ok let’s jump forward some years and assume that this single pilot concept has finally found its way in the industry. I’m wondering about what the training background of the new captains would be once the pool of old style multi crew pilots dried out:
Flight school (maybe similar to nowadays MPL) ->…………….-> seat 0A on A350?? :confused:

hikoushi

25th Sep 2021, 07:46

….so what of the lessons we learned with GermanWings? There are more reasons than system redundancy for having more than one person on the flight deck.

These A350 operators will throw all those lessons away to save a buck by cutting out the second officer…. Crazy. This will not end well!

Denti

25th Sep 2021, 12:24

Quite honestly, that issue has been moved to a different point in the career: yearly psych evaluations during the medical, plus thorough in psych evaluations before hiring someone and again before upgrading him or her to captain. Pilots being alone on the flight deck is absolute normal routine anyway.

vilas

25th Sep 2021, 13:35

Psychological evaluation is not like blood pressure or sugar. There are no clear cut parameters for psychological well being. Most accidents are caused by psychologically normal, some excellent humans but professionally poor pilots. With human factors and just culture providing them a safety jacket they don't have to worry much any way.

Uplinker

3rd Oct 2021, 12:56

May I quote Chesley Sullenberger? (Captain of Cactus 1549, who with F/O Jeff Skiles, was forced to land in the Hudson river after a double engine failure).

"Everything we know in aviation, every rule in the rule book, every procedure we have, we know because someone somewhere died....
We have purchased at great cost, lessons literally bought with blood that we have to preserve as institutional knowledge and pass on to succeeding generations. We cannot have the moral failure of forgetting these lessons and have to relearn them."

Flying Clog

3rd Oct 2021, 13:47

Try to explain that to a CX bean counter and let me know how you get on.

Klauss

4th Oct 2021, 03:39

Hi,
I find the single pilot idea on passenger aircraft a bit absurd.
Check out Aviation Herald. https://avherald.com/ , search for ´incapacitated´.
Numerous instances are then listed.

For safety, two pilots are needed in the cockpit.

Busbuoy

4th Oct 2021, 05:58

But Swire don't want to pay for two pilots in the cruise....when are you people just going to accept that!
They'll find a way to make it appear safe.

FMS82

4th Oct 2021, 15:56

I've never seen a thread where people are barking up the wrong tree so much. Every second post is ranting about single pilot operations (and lack of redundancy) or even full autonomous flight. That's not what this is about at all.

This is single pilot during cruise. I'll break it down: there's two or more pilots on board. During cruise, the operation of the ship is overseen by one. Take off and landing are still performed by two people.

What will also happen: Take off and landing will be increasingly automated, and with an aircraft like the a350, it's actually improving safety to remove the pilots from the loop and have them perform a purely supervisory role. Less manual flying, full blown erosion of flying skills - it's coming... Children of the magenta line was great teaching for 80's and 90's tech like those first glass cockpits (767, 757, 744, A320/30/40) with insanely unreliable and limited technology.

safetypee

4th Oct 2021, 17:48

Ahh, sensible thinking survives in aviation; credible reality from FMS.

Agree, Magenta Line well past its usefulness. Often shown as the complete answer - click click, but failing to explain how the point to disconnect is identified or even if there is sufficient mental capacity because the focus is on failure.

No longer relevant to think ‘man or machine’ (early automation), instead think ‘man and machine’ more often as an inseparable unit: you disconnect the AP, but still depend on FD and FMS.

megan

5th Oct 2021, 01:40

Is the single pilot in the cockpit going to have a dead mans handle? :hmm:

Roj approved

5th Oct 2021, 03:17

The 787 does, (I heard all the Big Boeings do), not sure about the A350.

Googlebug

5th Oct 2021, 05:43

Imho there will always be a human in the flight deck, maybe not a pilot the job may be entirely re designed but it will be a human employed by the airline. Someone needs to be to blame when things go wrong. You will always have accidents, do Boeing and Airbus really want to be the sole party to blame for every accident. 2 max crashes have led to $3bn lawsuit for Boeing so far?

The other issue will be government and airspace restrictions. Regulation is very slow moving. Unionised countries will put a break in the road. Take France up until a decade ago no one over 65 could land there. Now the updated rule is one pilot must be under 60. Or take regulations around medical issues and MOLs on your licence, only one of you being allowed one.

Airlines might push hard for this, but I can’t see governments being that receptive until a lot of proof of concept. And even then you’d have to convince all governments.

Lookleft

6th Oct 2021, 22:42

it's actually improving safety to remove the pilots from the loop and have them perform a purely supervisory role.

Boeing designed that into the 777 with a FT-ADIRU. Even that one component was enough to nearly bring one down. It was the crew who got it back on the ground and even then they had to ignore a windshear warning which was spurious even though their training dictated a go-around.

Less manual flying, full blown erosion of flying skills - it's coming...

Not sure what you mean when you say its coming, its already here and the airlines are having to include more manual flying into the regular simulator checks. Why? Because 80's and 90's tech like those first glass cockpits (767, 757, 744, A320/30/40) with insanely unreliable and limited technology. are still in service. The improvements in technology have had to do with fuel economy and reducing bleed air demand on the engines. The software and hardware driving the glass cockpits is still the same, just prettier to look at.

Uplinker

7th Oct 2021, 09:52

I.............Every second post is ranting about single pilot operations (and lack of redundancy) or even full autonomous flight.......

Not ranting, but concerned about safety.

So the single pilot is there in the cruise over the middle of the ocean and the other pilot is in the bunk 45 minutes into deep sleep.......Suddenly an engine fire warning sounds. What does the single pilot do? Shut down the on-fire engine without any cross checking of which engine, which fire push-button, which engine master switch etc. Or wait until the other pilot - who presumably has a CRC and Master warning light above their bunk, is shocked into opening their eyes and stumbles groggily towards the cockpit, waits for the single pilot to check and unlock the door, then sits down and tries to wake up and make sense of what is happening - and only then can the on-fire engine be cross checked and shut down. Surely there would need to be some extra automation to cope with that, (and ditto for a major decompression).

.......like those first glass cockpits (767, 757, 744, A320/30/40) with insanely unreliable and limited technology. my bold.

Errr, what ? Can't speak for Boeings, but think I remember just a single duff display unit in about 15 years of flying Airbus FBW glass cockpit, and some older ones could be a bit dim in bright sunlight. Those displays and the whole cockpit are a really good example of an extremely well designed, clear and well functioning suit of equipment.

Nick 1

7th Oct 2021, 15:05

“.. its already here and the airlines are having to include more manual flying into the regular simulator checks..”
Airbus , 2 Elac 3 Sec 2 Fac , who is flying manually what ?

FMS82

7th Oct 2021, 17:33

Uplinker, Lookleft - you both make valid points, but I believe you're not seeing the A350 for what it is.

It's a paradigm shift. Although I agree that the interface appears to only look a little prettier, the hardware and software behind it are very different from previous generations. This aircraft is vastly more capable and is only being operated in a conventional manner for the time being. With minimal upgrades, a suite of further automation can be rolled out, enabling a completely different way of operating the aircraft, indeed safely moving into single pilot ops during cruise.

One of you mentioned a decompression scenario: perfect example of my point... The -1000 does it all for you. (Just Google: A350 AED)

Stabmotion

7th Oct 2021, 20:35

So what happened to the procedures put in place after the GermanWings incident?

I was wondering the same. I cannot be alone for 5’ while the other pilot goes to the the lav but it’s acceptable to be for hours in cruise?

I see a contradiction there…

tdracer

7th Oct 2021, 21:07

Does anyone really believe that a suicidal pilot won't be able to intentionally crash the aircraft if they're the pilot flying just because someone else is on the flight deck?
The PF of Atlas 3591 did a bang up job of it with 2 others on the flight deck with him, and he wasn't even trying...
Not dismissing the other arguments against single pilot ops, but keeping a suicidal pilot from crashing just doesn't wash. If they really want to crash, they'll do it. The two people on the flight deck at all times was just a feel-good.

safetypee

7th Oct 2021, 21:36

Three historical documents linked below:-
The first (early 1970s) considers the arguments for changing from 3 crew to 2 (BAC/HSA - British Aerospace). Note the views on crew duties, but also that the considerations were very futuristic. The AFD was evaluated by a range of operators, which proved the concept, but still faced bias and commercial issues before certification acceptance.
Similarly structured arguments would be required for 2 pilots decreasing to 1 during the cruise.

The two other documents relate to the design philosophy’s of Airbus and Boeing aircraft (published 1970/80 ?). A simplistic contrast based on these views suggests that the 1 pilot cruise would be easier to argue for the more future-looking aircraft.

Boeing constrained by the past - ‘man or machine’.
Airbus, freedom of the future - ‘man and machine’.

All of the authors were test pilots - engineers, people with visions of the future.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/21i32mrc5of3zw5/Advanced%20Flight%20Deck%20SKMBT_C25210092409410.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1vzpdie1z0g211/Boeing%20Flightdeck%20Human%20Centred%20Design%20%2B%2B%2B.p df?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/91aqr7vy9nttox6/Design%20and%20operation%20Ziegler%201%20%2B%2B.pdf?dl=0

FMS82

8th Oct 2021, 06:11

tdracer

Could not agree more. The single pilot suicide argument doesn't stick. It's not like solo bus drivers carrying 50+ pax are intentionally driving of cliffs and bridges en masse. Sickening incidents like Germanwings are fortunately statistical outliers, and there is little you can do besides proper psychological screening during recruitment. No amount of people on the flight deck are going to make a difference in the final outcome, in case a sick/depressive mind has been made up. Sadly

Less Hair

8th Oct 2021, 06:39

This is quite a paradigm change. Wanting to save money by reducing the crew members on duty to one in a cockpit designed for two at the cost of functionality and safety. Let's see how this works out? Real world guinea pig operations. Wouldn't this be better dealt with inside some remote research simulator cabin on the ground only?

safetypee

8th Oct 2021, 07:36

After 9/11 there was significant research into preventing repetition with use of existing on-board technology.
EGPWS, with a modified obstacle / location data base is very capable in alerting hazards.
Connecting the ‘pullup’ output to the auto flight system, in a closed secure system, could prevent an aircraft hitting obstacle or ground other than a runway (appropriate angle / speed) - in this rare situation the system overrides the crews input.

AFAIK, whilst the system was tested it was not pursued, although there were thoughts of auto pull up for commercial use. At the time this was rejected due to fear of inadvertent EGPWS / AP activation and subsequent legal cases for injury with unsecured seating.

Such is the state of aviation safety; safety culture - it is more acceptable for an aircraft to crash opposed to operators being sued for a safe outcome.

Do some modern aircraft change the FD command with EGPWS ‘pull up’ to provide a reinforcing indication of required action?

Kennytheking

9th Oct 2021, 06:51

I will worry about this when I don't have to trawl through dozens of pages of 1940's style teletext notams. We don't even have the Ai to figure out which notams are important, let alone populate aircraft systems with the relevant data. Meh!

Nick 1

12th Oct 2021, 07:11

From AinOnline...AIRBUS EXPLORE AUTONOMOUS TECH Meanwhile, Airbus is engaged in studies on operational patterns for flight crew on long-range flights. These studies are ongoing and based on a minimum of two operating crew per flight, and they are being undertaken in conjunction with the regulatory authorities and airline partners.

“With safety and social acceptance being top priorities, our mission is not to move ahead with autonomy but to explore autonomous technologies alongside technologies in materials, electrification, connectivity, and more,” an Airbus spokesperson said. “In doing so, we are able to analyze the potential of these innovations to enhance future operations, and at the same time, leverage these opportunities to further improve aircraft safety while ensuring today’s unprecedented levels are maintained.”

According to Airbus, although fully autonomous aircraft are still many years away, urban air mobility vehicles are proving to be a valuable option to start the rollout of self-piloting aircraft operations.

“New urban air mobility vehicles like Vahana have been designed to integrate self-piloting functionalities from the start. This is because flying taxi missions involve short, point-to-point flights along a restricted selection of routes using limited landing infrastructure, thus making urban air vehicles ideal for testing self-piloting operations in aircraft. Although the technology is still not mature enough to transport passengers, autonomy in aircraft operations will undoubtedly be shaped by self-piloting, flying taxi demonstrators like Vahana,” said Airbus.

No precise calendar exists for these new technologies, which are not fully mature, according to Airbus. “Based on technology availability and maturity, the first potential application of autonomous technologies might be single-pilot operations and only during the cruise phase,” the Airbus spokesperson said.

FMS82

6th Dec 2021, 10:18

https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-cargo-plane-may-be-candidate-for-single-pilot-operations-2021-11

That's a fairly ****ty outlet, but I still thought it was relevant to share.

Like I said further up in this thread: cargo single ops first... This machine is more ready for it than anyone here is willing to admit

BoeingDriver99

6th Dec 2021, 11:19

Quite possibly the most painful thing I’ve ever read on a browser.

Less Hair

6th Dec 2021, 11:33

It is a cockpit made and certified for two pilots. I wonder how they want to convince the authorities to give up the safety layer of human redundancy at the controls?
If they want to do it we need a new single pilot cockpit from the grounds up including truly "fail safe" datalinks and remote infrastructure.
One lesson learned from AF447 was that it took the captain too long to regain situational awareness after being called up front from the crew rest.

ATC Watcher

6th Dec 2021, 15:43

The article is quite depressing to read but we have to remember this not Airbus speaking , just a journalist speculating and mixing up 3 things .

One pilot during the cruise will come with or without someone ( kind of a ground F/O) on the ground watching up is the issue . USA (NASA CONOPS) says there should be one , monitoring a few flights. Airbus says there is no need for that .
However as Less Hair remarked either way this needs a safe and functioning data link to work ,. Data link is still not working today as it should , and no quick fix in sight. Currently , outside VHF coverage HF is the CPDLC back up .. I do not see any authority certifying emergency procedures relayed via HF radio operators.
..
Single pilot operations ,is an aircraft operated by a single pilot , a totally different concept and cockpit design . Embraer has the lead on that . Whether we will see a E190 sized aircraft certified for singled pilot on short flights using ADS-C is only a matter of time I would say .

Then we have autonomous flight . Nobody on the aircraft .We call this drones. For the moment drones carrying pax is out of the question .But the technology is there already , however 3 things block : insurance premiums is one , acceptance by people is another . But both can and will probably be solved, as both are only a question of money. . The 3rd one is the critical one : who will be responsible for software programming errors or omissions leading to a massive loss of life ? The manufacturer, the programmer of the autonomous software codes or of the aircraft operator ( i.e. airline ) . That is not only money but facing judges. Every management always wants a responsible layer to protect them , with autonomous flight , the barrier is much thinner and easier to jump.

Lookleft

6th Dec 2021, 21:59

For technology to be adopted it has to be relevant and cost effective. Man has been able to go to the moon since 1969 but since 1972 it has not been cost effective and its relevance has diminished. It is still possible however. Autonomous passenger aircraft don't meet the relevance and cost effective criteria. Airline travel is still the safest form of travel despite its complexity. The technology that is currently in aircraft meets the cost effective and relevance criteria because 2 pilots are still present. Once they are taken out then the cost of the technology is going to skyrocket because of the certification and testing of the concept. Its not just the technology required to get the plane off the ground and back on in a safe manner. What about the integration with ATC, integration with airports, handling of diversions, handling of emergencies. Its not just about flying from A to B. Yes the technology exists but what is the relevance and is it more cost effective? Technology does not = zero accidents.

ATC Watcher

7th Dec 2021, 07:22

Its not just the technology required to get the plane off the ground and back on in a safe manner. What about the integration with ATC, integration with airports, handling of diversions, handling of emergencies. Its not just about flying from A to B.
Exactly . I like your analogy with man on the moon, not to mention the Safety case on that one .
I am in my onw area currently arguing with engineers regarding implementation of fully automated ATC in periods of low traffic. Machine issuing instructions for separation , the whole lot. The technology is there already ,using machine learning ( Artificial Intelligence ) One of their main augments is : "if it works with Tesla, why not with aircraft ? "
No need to post arguments here against that statement , I know them and used them. But one thing that scare the S* *t ..out of them is their personal liability in case the machine they designed gets it wrong.

FMS82

11th Dec 2021, 06:49

Thread seems to inexplicably drift to autonomous flight again. This is about single pilot ops coming - by the way not just cobbled up by some journo, but the CEO of Airbus hinting at this very thing
we all agree we're a bit of innovation away from autonomous flights, maybe we'll never get there
But single pilot, especially only during cruise, will come in a few years. A350F first

deja vu

11th Dec 2021, 07:13

The only good thing that may come out of single pilot ops is no more need for CRM. But no doubt the woksters will think of some other BS.

Less Hair

11th Dec 2021, 08:18

You might end up with AI and CRM. Even more fun.

safetypee

19th Dec 2021, 06:43

The immediate suggestion for only one crew member on the flight-deck during cruise would have to consider the content of that ‘operation’ at that time, i.e. during specific flight phases, including the necessity for a pilot to return to the flight-deck.
Also what constitutes ‘material’ times.

AMC 25.1523 Minimum flight crew
1 Both the number and identity of the flight crew members should be established.
2 If the minimum flight crew varies with the kinds of operation to which the aeroplane is limited, the approved number and identity of the flight crew members should be stated for each kind of operation.
3 If a particular flight crew member's station has to be occupied at all material times, this should be stated when specifying the minimum flight crew.

The early versions on the HS125 (Jet Dragon - cf Dragon Rapide) were single pilot, but required a second person with access to the flight-deck to operate the emergency discharge value. Later versions of the aircraft had two crew (but not by requirement), primarily due to longer range flights and to promote a sales image of a grown up aircraft; single pilot during cruise was accepted, a norm.

“...you can always tell the pioneers – they’re the ones with all the arrows sticking in their backs!”

Less Hair

19th Dec 2021, 06:56

Wouldn't it be way more promising to keep two pilots on the flight deck all the time and hook up some unmanned freighter electronically as automated formation flying buddy behind it? Maybe even with this energy harvesting vortex formation flying or similar?

kontrolor

19th Dec 2021, 16:10

Those are the sort of things safety engineers and risk management processes need to address. Once they can successfully show that they have a method of dealing with that and then the other issues then the soulless and cold world of aviation regulation might allow it.

At the end of the day aviation only exists because the parties involved have proved that they can mitigate the risks involved with it to make it acceptable to the traveling public. There's no reason why they couldn't do it again.

Remember, the aviation community was in arms when the flight engineer was replaced by computers.
I would not like to be in their shoes, when they will have to explain to relatives of 350+ victims when (not if) something goes wrong.

and of course - if flight crews are seen only as cost, then pilotless planes are not far away. But this would also mean end of aviation as transport.