Aviation regulators push for more automation so flights can be run by a single pilot

[slfool]

Regulators are pushing the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to examine ways of making single pilot operations the eventual norm in commercial flights.

In a working paper (https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a41/Documents/WP/wp_101_en.pdf) [PDF] filed with the aviation standards body, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requested on behalf of member states that the "necessary enablers" be created "for a safe and globally harmonized introduction of commercial air transport (CAT) operations of large aeroplanes with optimised crew/single-pilot operations while ensuring an equivalent or higher level of safety compared to that achieved in current operations."

https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/21/pilot_single/

[rudestuff]

Well that won't happen any time soon. Less pilots can never offer a greater safety margin.

[MechEngr]

That would be fewer pilots - in several accidents I'm not sure that having two pilots was of benefit. These crashes seemed to depend heavily on the assumption by one pilot that the other pilot was doing some action and the other pilot doing the same, with neither doing the correct thing. PIA8303, for example, where the PIC had essentially committed to slamming it down, and the FO thought they were going around when he retracted the gear. Without the FO action it would have been significantly different.

What I would expect is a slight increase in the number of flights where the lone pilot fell asleep.

Overall it doesn't seem to me like a large positive action to reduce the number of pilots in a plane, regardless of special cases where it wasn't. It's very difficult to determine when things went right only because there were two and I'm not keen to find that number out by having those accidents with one.

[Less Hair]

I agree that there are examples of more than one not being helpful or not working together as intended. But the entire aviation safety system is based on redundancy and in the cockpit where it matters most they want to go single pilot? There are many incidents where even three persons could barely handle what was going on. Whenever things go crazy more than one is needed. A cabin attendant to help won't be enough.

[meleagertoo]

Well that won't happen any time soon. Less pilots can never offer a greater safety margin.

I fully agree with you but caution the usage of English in such matters.

"less pilots" means with none. ie 'without pilots'. I'm sure you didn't intend that.

"Fewer pilots" would mean less than x - when usually x=2....

[alphacentauri]

What's wrong with no (0) pilots? We are already crashing aeroplanes semi regularly with 2-3 pilots on board, so long as the accident rate (level of safety) remains constant what difference does it make?

Unless you are advocating for a zero accident rate, which is an impossible dream for crewed operations,.....why are we setting the safety bar higher for uncrewed ops? (or less crewed ops)

Alpha

[Busdriver01]

There may well be cases where having differing opinions between flight crew members resulted in a crash/hull loss/etc, but that doesn't mean that we should never have two pilots. People are always quick to point out where pilots have made errors, but what we don't hear about is how many times having two pilots *avoided* an accident - ie where one made an error that was caught by the other. (The same argument applies for wanting pilotless aircraft - where the aircraft couldn't handle a situation/suffered failures/etc and one or more of the pilots saved the day). A bit like the old 'where do we need armour on our warplanes?' story. People are quick to say 'where all the bullet holes are!" or "pilots cause (X) number of crashes" but the reality may well be 'where the bullet holes *aren't*" - 'pilots prevent (Y) times MORE crashes'

[alphacentauri]

My point wasn't about pilots making errors. They do and they will continue to do so.

The point was, if one pilot, or no pilots, can be shown to have the same error rate than multi pilot, then what difference does it make?

Or is the safety bar higher for less crewed/uncrewed ops than it is for multi crew operations? If it is, why?

Alpha

[CVividasku]

What's wrong with no (0) pilots? We are already crashing aeroplanes semi regularly with 2-3 pilots on board, so long as the accident rate (level of safety) remains constant what difference does it make?

Unless you are advocating for a zero accident rate, which is an impossible dream for crewed operations,.....why are we setting the safety bar higher for uncrewed ops? (or less crewed ops)

Alpha
Very wrong reasoning to think only about accidents that were created by pilots while omitting all the accidents that didn't happen thanks to pilots.
The latter are far more frequent.
Automation bugs happen really frequently.

[uxb99]

Automation is the biggest business in town at the moment. Whether it be picking, packing and delivering your latest Amazon purchase, non-driver Uber cabs or drone technology.
I think it's inevitable as the power of computers and AI increases that humans are taken out of the loop. Why not aircraft? We already have autonomous trains.
I think I read somewhere that USAAF drones fly with an almost perfect safety record.
The Mars probes are effectively autonomous due to the delay between here and Earth and then there is the latest Moon lander tests.

Would I be happy to fly on a pilotless aircraft? No. But then people thought they would die of asphyxiation on a train.
Eventually attitudes change.

Skynet anyone?

[Qanchor]

This needs to be called for what it is. It's about money & distraction.

Money. While the regulators may be calling for more automation, it'll be the airlines calling for less pilots. The airlines know single pilots ops "will never fly", the regulators and public opinion will see to that. What they do want is less pilots per flight. Instead of augmented crews on long haul flights, the airlines want a 2 pilot crew with both pilots on the deck for take-off & landing - the cruise will be single pilot while the other is in the CRC. There's a potential 33%-50% saving in crew costs on all long haul flights. Job done, back slaps & bonuses all round.
Distraction. While the media will give this oxygen, there'll be push-back from the punters and the airlines will suddenly "listen to the people" and announce they are ditching the single pilot idea and that there will always be 2 pilots in the cockpit, what they won't say is that there will only ever be 2 pilots on the aircraft, irrespective of sector length.

[Flyhighfirst]

This will happen. Maybe not soon, but it is the next logical step. The step after will be pilotless aircraft. Again not soon, as in our lifetimes, but it will happen. It won’t take more than a generation or 2 (up to 50 years) for public perception to switch to trusting automation over manned crew. Once they are fully used to everything in their lives being automated. There are already over 1400 self driving cars in the US. Over the next 20 years I see that being the majority of all cars.

There will still be accidents, but I think it will be the same or slightly lower than crewed aircraft by the time it happens. It will start with cargo, then the military, then commercial.

[Flyer 1492]

Envoy in the USA just had a flight out of ORD where the captain had a heart attack just on rotation. The line check pilot flew a wide pattern and landed back in ORD. Sadly, the captain did not make it. My condolences to the family. This is why you have 2 pilots at the controls.

[Less Hair]

Instead of single pilot cockpits it would make more sense to pair a two man cockpit with unmanned "slaves", like an unmanned freighter, that follows in automated formation distance (maybe in goose formation style for drag avoidance?) and that can be remotely controlled by the manned master aircraft and handed over to some drone landing team close to destination. Sort of the best of both worlds but not the worst like one pilot only for everybody.
Convincing the flying public will be a major hurdle.

[MENELAUS]

It’s already being done. Airbus delivery flights from Blagnac for more then one carrier are trialing the Airbus single pilot concept.

[SQUAWKIDENT]

And here's another good reason why we should never have single pilot cockpits. I doubt automation would help in this situation.Captain suffers Heart Attack on takeoff | Emergency Return to O'Hare

https://youtu.be/v-hJtF9qPyY

[Less Hair]

It’s already being done. Airbus delivery flights from Blagnac for more than one carrier are trialing the Airbus single pilot concept.

Would you care to elaborate what you mean please?

[maggotdriver]

My questions are these:

*if there is one pilot and the rest of the automated systems are designed by humans, do we really free ourselves from human error? Have a look at the QF72 for example.

*further to that, if the PIC is responsible under the legislation can they rid themselves of the automation if deemed necessary? If not do we charge the software designers, engineers, risk assessors and ultimately boards of the companies that will inevitably fail us?

[MENELAUS]

Would you care to elaborate what you mean please?


Full delivery crew available but only one pilot and the airbus observer present in the cockpit at any one time. For the cruise only so far. And not over the PRC because of terrain etc and sh@t ATC. Aircraft controlled via datalink essentially from Toulouse. Early days yet but it is certainly being trialed on delivery flights. And doesn’t take a genius to work out the airlines involved.

[alphacentauri]

Very wrong reasoning to think only about accidents that were created by pilots while omitting all the accidents that didn't happen thanks to pilots.

The reasoning is balanced when you consider all the accidents that didnt happen thanks to technology and systems (TCAS/TAWS,etc). Its not just pilots that prevent accidents. And for further consideration, what about those accidents where to avoid an accident the pilot was simply following a direction from a technology/system...the same system that could have avoided the accident if it were left to do so.

Not to mention, the numerous accidents where the pilots made a concious decision to ignore what the technology/system was advising them to do....

​​​​​​​Alpha

[GlobalNav]

When all is normal, a single pilot might be able to manage the flight without incident. But the level of safety, and especially the ability to cope with non-normal conditions is greatly reduced. One need only look to the safety level of general aviation. This level of safety must not be accepted for pt 135/121 operations.

[172_driver]

Who in their right mind would want to do this job by themselves??

The social aspect (and salary…still, hehe) is to a great deal the reason why I am still in it. The Covid pandemic opened a whole lot of new doors and flying isn’t a given for me anymore. Can’t imagine I am the only one…..

[ZFT]

Convincing the flying public will be a major hurdle.

The majority of the flying public only care about price - if its cheap enough, then whether 3,2,1 or 0 up front sadly won't matter.

[Less Hair]

The majority of the flying public seems to have a fear of flying and will finally pick the option it considers the safest. Imagine electrical fires or similar and then the remote control or AI left having to take over.

If we would want to abandon redundancy as a concept we can go single engine, single generator, single hydraulics and so on. Making aircraft less complex, more lightweight and tickets cheaper? And who would need that costly airport fire brigade?

[Mostly Harmless]

Whatever it takes to keep labour costs low and falling. Makes you wonder who the government is representing, the people or the corporations? Okay, there's no wondering... it's not the people.

[N707ZS]

An Envoy Air pilot passed out while taking off from Chicago O’Hare International Airport and was later pronounced dead, officials said on Tuesday. The co-pilot took control of the plane and managed to land safely. With single pilot ops the officials would be saying something a lot worse.

[ferry pilot]

There is no credible single pilot operation of any large airplane. Without the redundancy of a second pilot, full automation is the only alternative. The first fully automated flight will be the first with a single pilot.

[dr dre]

The reason why single pilot ops won’t be around for the foreseeable future is incapacitation. Whilst increased use of automation may make a single pilot airliner a reasonable prospect you then have to make it fully automated in case of that pilot being incapacitated. So you basically need a far greater level of automation nearing AI level. And the bigger problem, you’ll also need uninterrupted and perfectly reliable ground to air communication in case of that incapacitation. There’s enough problems with VHF comms interruptions to prevent that from happening without a massive overhaul of the worldwide communications network.

Basically a minimum of 30 years before the first scheduled single pilot flight happens. Every single aircraft manufacturers are planning is two crew, and they’ll be in operation for at least 25-30 years.

[roll_over]

Pilots are their own worst enemies. You will have pilots losing their minds about how cool this plane is that can taxi, take off and fly in cruise by itself then wonder why their conditions are in the gutter. By the time this happens the people they pioneered this will be retired on their fat pensions.

[reynoldsno1]

The lawyers and insurers are going to make a lot of money.

[Asturias56]

"Less pilots can never offer a greater safety margin."

that's clearly not true historically - as the number of people on the flight deck has reduced safety rates have increased - of course it due to better higher tech and more automation enabling a reduction - not the other way round - but no-one would suggest INCREASING the numbers of n the flight deck would they?

And yes the tech occasionally goes wrong - but again probably not as often as humans

[SaulGoodman]

What's wrong with no (0) pilots? We are already crashing aeroplanes semi regularly with 2-3 pilots on board, so long as the accident rate (level of safety) remains constant what difference does it make?

Unless you are advocating for a zero accident rate, which is an impossible dream for crewed operations,.....why are we setting the safety bar higher for uncrewed ops? (or less crewed ops)

Alpha
“We” are NOT crashing regularly! Safest couple of years in aviation history. But yes, sometimes but very very seldom accidents are caused by pilot error. Much more often accidents are prevented by pilot action! From my own experience as a pilot I wouldn’t putt my family in a pilotless aircraft. I have seen too many automation hick ups for that.

[MENELAUS]

The aircraft in question are already highly autonomous with Auto TCAS and Auto emergency descent. Autonomous taxi trials are underway at Toulouse, and these flights have already been conducted, with the only real pilot input being altering the FCU, and a TCAS and visual lookout. Except as stated through Russian airspace ( when we used it ) due to lack of CPDLC and the PRC, due to terrain and paranoid standards of control that can’t help but interfere all the time. Albeit with a full crew available and rotated through as required. However that is more of a requirement for the entire crew to witness the operation as opposed to fatigue.
As to VHF outages a fair part of the world has CPDLC coverage, satellite enabled. I can’t remember when I last had a prolonged comms outage, even in the Dark Continent.
Incapacitation is a factor. That’ll be down to the regulators and our excellent (!) medicals. Likely to get more stringent and more invasive. A bigger factor is the chance of a “Eurowings” type event and indeed the effect on the mental health of the pilots involved due to isolation etc. That said, carriers in the less enlightened parts of the world have been quite happy to have their crews confined to their hotel rooms on layover with little or no interaction for almost 2 years now, consigned to endless loop rostering, with the only way out to the greater community and your families to spend a further 14, or 21 days locked up in a hotel at the end of the loop. And endless cycles of pointless testing.
So, it is being actively looked at. With the initial aim to reduce crews from 4 to 3, 3 to 2 etc etc. A beancounters wet dream.
Convince yourself that this is 30 years away if you wish.

[Less Hair]

Military drones seem to have an unusually high cruise phase crash rate. Why is that happening? We should find out before airliners go unmanned.
https://dronewars.net/2019/06/09/accidents-will-happen-a-dataset-of-military-drone-crashes/

[Theholdingpoint]

They still fail to understand the FO is a CP in training...

[paco]

As long as they don't use tesla software.....

[MENELAUS]

Military drones seem to have an unusually high cruise phase crash rate. Why is that happening? We should find out before airliners go unmanned.
https://dronewars.net/2019/06/09/accidents-will-happen-a-dataset-of-military-drone-crashes/


Presumably because there is a huge amount of software and hardware invested in downing drones ?

[Less Hair]

It's more like restreamed mechanics being unaware of icing and stalls when steep turning in high mountains and such.

[Ancient Observer]

Back to the medical data?
I'm sure someone knows what the rate of incapacitation due to medical reasons is. .........

[FullWings]

I think it’s not so much the reduced redundancy, although that plays a part, it’s the human interaction with two or more crew members bouncing ideas off each other, generating solutions and monitoring the results. You read about pilot error in accident reports but you don’t read about how good CRM stopped an accident chain before it had a chance to develop.

The automation will have to become better, as we are at the unfortunate time where it’s reliable up to the point where things get really bad, then it dumps the whole mess on the (single) pilot. Much in the way of self-driving vehicles in their current state of evolution. If the sole pilot who is awake is in the toilet when something bad happens (there was an opportunity for a joke there but I resisted it), then the aircraft must be able to cope.

If a non-pilot goes flying in a light aircraft with a qualified pilot, they have to assume the chances of survival are not good if that pilot becomes incapacitated, but do it anyway for fun. Will several hundred commercial travellers see it in the same light?

[9 lives]

This can be handled a different way: Offer the choice when passengers are booking their tickets: "Would you like to fly in an airplane piloted by two pilots? Or, just One? (or none, if full automation is reality). The market will speak!

[level_change]

Let's fully automate it guys and then we can all finally start working in real jobs.

The captain has successfully connected to your airplane on EK flight 011; he will fly you to Mumbai tonight with pleasure.
:ok:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x625/indian_guy_wireless_headphones_holding_joystick_plays_video_ games_console_standing_studio_portrait_139861011_f1490fb1dd1 96782b18e64455511a2201cc3984c.jpg

[Busdriver01]

My other question for all of this is: if we get to a stage where aircraft are flying around completely autonomously, all cars, taxies, buses, trains, etc will also be autonomous. Logically, if AI is good enough to fly an aircraft, it's probably good enough to do most jobs you can think of. Managing that fund? easy. designing that scyscraper? done. routine operation? half the time a doctor would need. My point is, To what end do we do away with all these jobs in favour of automation? Who's then earning money to pay for all the things to keep the economy going? Or do we all become 'thinkers' ?

[vilas]

Aircraft have crashed, had incidents with one, two or even three pilots in front and for reasons like inability to land fully serviceable aircraft in VMC or executing an improper go around. So the safety theory with more humans in front doesn't hold any water. Piloting errors still remain major cause of accidents. Improved safety is due to more automation. Militant flashing of Human factors doesn't really come to the rescue of the pilot but in fact becomes the worst advertisement for human presence in the cockpit. Humans in front don't provide 100% Safety . So why expect 100% safety from fully automated aircraft? As long as it is better than human operating aircraft and significantly cheaper it will be accepted. It's the March of technology it may be delayed but can't be stayed.

[armagnac2010]

Bear in mind systems like the Garmin autoland - today only for general aviation, but it will likely exist soon on larger stuff.

https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland

The real issue is probably the Germanwings case, but experience shows having 2 pilots only partially mitigate the risk associated with mental health issues. And we have yet to see a computer committing suicide.

[Henri737]

Incapacitation was rare in the past...... So I never will enter a flight with only one crew member. Do I know what I'm talking about? 21,000 hrs ATPL B737-2-3-7-800. Wondering what medical doctors think.
Know what the beancounters think....

[FlightDetent]

This needs to be called for what it is. It's about money & distraction.
....
HEAR HEAR (and read his posting)

[Less Hair]

Soon we will have 200 hrs junior Captains. No prior experience possible.

[Busdriver01]

Aircraft have crashed, had incidents with one, two or even three pilots in front and for reasons like inability to land fully serviceable aircraft in VMC or executing an improper go around. So the safety theory with more humans in front doesn't hold any water. Piloting errors still remain major cause of accidents. Improved safety is due to more automation. Militant flashing of Human factors doesn't really come to the rescue of the pilot but in fact becomes the worst advertisement for human presence in the cockpit. Humans in front don't provide 100% Safety . So why expect 100% safety from fully automated aircraft? As long as it is better than human operating aircraft and significantly cheaper it will be accepted. It's the March of technology it may be delayed but can't be stayed.

This is a really interesting point. I believe the same to be true of self driving cars at the moment. Humans not providing 100% = automation not having to either does make sense at some level, but there's a bit of a moral / ethical question about a machine being unsafe vs. 'what if there'd been a pilot there'. As you say, time will likely cause us to accept the higher-than-human-safety-stamdards-but-not-100%-either, but I don't believe anyone will accept it in the near future.

[Pilot DAR]

Piloting errors still remain major cause of accidents. Improved safety is due to more automation.

I cannot entirely agree with this. I have personally encountered situations where the automation (Garmin in GA airplanes) was, for programming thought/scenerio omission, enticing me into a situation I would not normally allow to develop. I resisted, reverted to the "old fashioned" way of piloting, and am here to write my opinion. If I had blindly followed the magenta line, I would not be here. Automation is an aid to a wise pilot. At a certain threshold (set by national regulation) a second pilot is a wise backup.

Soon we will have 200 hrs junior Captains. No prior experience possible.

This possible future situation does concern me!

[CargoOne]

Ask navigators and flight engineers- they have thought it is unthinkable to operate an aircraft without them.

[Nil by mouth]

If ever single pilot commercial flights become a reality, all pax should have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePDl1JNqjpM on their smartphones as a requirement before boarding ;)

[tdracer]

The automation will have to become better, as we are at the unfortunate time where it’s reliable up to the point where things get really bad, then it dumps the whole mess on the (single) pilot. Much in the way of self-driving vehicles in their current state of evolution. If the sole pilot who is awake is in the toilet when something bad happens (there was an opportunity for a joke there but I resisted it), then the aircraft must be able to cope.


I think this is the key point. Making judgements based on current aircraft automation isn't valid because the current systems are all designed assuming human monitoring and input. The classic example is that modern automation is designed to disconnect and dump things back on the pilot(s) if it runs into trouble. To make single pilot (and eventually fully autonomous) operations viable will require a complete rethink of the automation systems - such that the 'backup' is not an external human but logic (and perhaps systems) integrated into the automation.
Referring to the area of my expertise, take engine controls. 80 years ago the pilot moved a lever that opened and closed the throttle on the engine to control engine power - the pilot was directly involved in the physical control of the engine. Modern engines used FADEC - the pilot (or automation) requests the power/thrust level desired, computers handle everything after that including the fuel metering valve position - there is no 'backup' - if the computer quits, so does the engine. Yes, there are backup modes to deal with loss of certain inputs, but again this is all controlled by the FADEC. Yes, most commercial aircraft have two or more engines - but if the FADEC software is defective and causes the engine to quit, they're all running the same software so there is no redundancy for s/w errors - all the engines will make the same error.
Commerical Aviation is necessarily conservative and resistant to change. It took decades to get comfortable with the idea that you don't need navigators and flight engineers. It took decades to get used to the idea that we didn't need more than two engines for long, overwater flights. It'll take a long time - probably decades - before automation advances to the point where the human pilot is redundant and can be reduced (and eventually eliminated).
But I have little doubt it'll eventually happen.

[FlightDetent]

Did not see this one on similar threads before (coming via FullWings at #40)

Even for the most basic case with remotely-piloted, autonomous in an emergency, single-pilot supervised cruise phase mode, there would need to be a toilet inside the secure flightdeck perimeter.

Althought I understand the available P2F Airbus conversion already may have that.

Job-wise what scares me more is ranges (=flight-times) that'd allow the full 'basic-rest' to be taken on-board, closed loop. Tongue in cheek? Knowing what the 'west' could come up with, looking at the ideas that may spring up from the SE Asia region makes you shiver.

[Wizofoz]

I'm sure technology will get to the point where one experienced pilot can safely manage a flight.

But where do they get the experience?

[Lookleft]

Why does my deja vu feeling get active whenever I see this topic come up again? My response is and will continue to be:

- Who is building commercial quantities of these planes? Boeing have announced they are not designing anything until at least 2030 and Airbus' latest product is the A350.
- When freight aircraft are single pilot then passenger planes will follow. Where do freight aircraft come from? See above.
- Technology has to be relevant and affordable for it to be developed into large scale commercially viable projects. In 60 years man went from the Wright Brother to outer space and supersonic commercial flight. In the next 60 years man is still flying commercial airliners that were initially designed during that 60 year period. Technological advances in the last 60 years have just produced more fuel efficient commercial airliners not innovative ones.
- Even if EASA do approve this they are not a worldwide regulator. After the Max grounding I doubt that the FAA or other regulators will be as keen to allow single pilot RPT jet operations through their airspace.

[pug]

They still fail to understand the FO is a CP in training...

This to me is the single point nobody has been able to counteract. How do you become a Captain without the many hours (years) of learning your trade from the RHS? How will it provide a cost saving significant enough to be justified? Not to mention the insurance premiums.

Fully autonomous flight will happen, but I would suggest that there wont be an interim single pilot operation. It will go from 2 to 0, and it wont be in the next 30 years.

[Bksmithca]

And the US Airforce has started https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/kc-46-pegasus-tanker-flies-with-a-single-pilot-at-the-controls.

[Flying Binghi]

This to me is the single point nobody has been able to counteract. How do you become a Captain without the many hours (years) of learning your trade from the RHS? How will it provide a cost saving significant enough to be justified? Not to mention the insurance premiums.

Fully autonomous flight will happen, but I would suggest that there wont be an interim single pilot operation. It will go from 2 to 0, and it wont be in the next 30 years.

Looking at the blue button on the dash in me little runabout, and what were on the dash 30 years ago, I’m thinking less than 30 years. Though agree with the two to none pilots suggestion.

Re current two pilot ops: If the argument is one pilot is enuf and the ‘electronics’ can take over if needed then why are any pilots needed?.. perhaps just in case… I’m thinking if one pilot is still required, then two are still required.

[FlightDetent]

Expanding on that. Reduction from 2 won't happen until the plane is ready to recover itself from an emergency (the double failure case where incapacitation is the first one). Fully autonomous normal flight as well as fully remotely piloted are natural precursors to that.

Hence, as implied above, the 1 pilot phase will go live (or?) on a 0 required pilot aeroplane. That is the block II of the next generation design which will have the necessary provisions embedded from its lauch.

The 1 pilot remaining will not need CP or FO qualification as he will be only the controls operator (a.k.a. button-pusher) in-situ. But a member of the piloting team which is remote and flies the fleet. Like the radio operator on HF areas - part of the ATS but not ATC himself. The command decisions will not be taken by the operator (PF = Pilot Flown).

That takes care of all the training - none required on the live hardware, all synthetic (25 years from now). Most of the beyond-machine, real and irreplacible piloting skills of today are actually skills of handling the other human / liveware elements of the SHELL model. Not required in the future auto-enabled configuration because that scope will not have any liveware elements in direct interaction with the seated human.

For those familiar with the Airbus FBW: the future 1 pilot is equivalent in intended function to the F/CTL mechanical backup of today. To serve as a bridge across an unexpected multisystem failure. Designed not to solve the problem but reconfigure into a known failure mode.

[ferry pilot]

There was a time when large airplanes all had four engines and three pilots. Taking out the third seat made economic and operational sense, as two pilots with a limited degree of automation were enough. But they had to work at it.
Then it got easier as GPS eased the navigation chore, engines got larger and more reliable, and there were fewer of them to manage.
Now computers fly the airplanes and pilots control the computers. It does not take two of them to do this. One could manage the same way two did when they took out the third seat. That is not the problem. The problem is bad days. We all have them. You don’t want to be all alone up there when you are having yours, do you? Or in the back when it is someone else’s turn.

[Flying Binghi]

……

…For those familiar with the Airbus FBW: the future 1 pilot is equivalent in intended function to the F/CTL mechanical backup of today. To serve as a bridge across an unexpected multisystem failure. Designed not to solve the problem but reconfigure into a known failure mode.

What happens if the “bridge” is in the dunny wearing disco glasses and with ear pods on listening to music and there is an alarm going off in the ‘office’..?

;)

[Less Hair]

Single pilot is marketing speak for no pilot at all as backup systems will need to work without the final pilot left in case he is incapacitated. This is why the concept does not care about how future captains might gain any experience. It might work for freighters but not for paying passengers.

[pug]

Looking at the blue button on the dash in me little runabout, and what were on the dash 30 years ago, I’m thinking less than 30 years. Though agree with the two to none pilots suggestion.

Re current two pilot ops: If the argument is one pilot is enuf and the ‘electronics’ can take over if needed then why are any pilots needed?.. perhaps just in case… I’m thinking if one pilot is still required, then two are still required.

How much do we trust fully automated land vehicles? I don’t think trains are comparable, they are on rails and only go forwards or backwards and could quite easily be driverless (yet all mainline trains in the U.K. still have a driver!), it’s ok having the technology (which we probably do now) but you then have to have many years of proving this tech to the point that the public’s perception sees a paradigm shift. I wouldn’t get on a pilotless aircraft right now, and I fully understand the human factors in safety incidents.

I think single pilot operations are fine for the long-haul cruise operations where savings are made on extra crew. But I don’t see it becoming a thing in the mainstream commercial aviation sector in the foreseeable future. Imagine insurance costs, the costs of ensuring the systems are solid and the data pipelines are secure. Won’t provide any cost savings, would probably significantly increase costs to the airline operators for many years before falling back to todays levels.

This is all without mentioning the moral aspect of increasing automation/AI.

[FlightDetent]

What happens if the “bridge” is in the dunny wearing disco glasses and with ear pods on listening to music and there is an alarm going off in the ‘office’..?;)The cockpit embedded toilet will have the ECAM panel installed.

Also this will never happen, same as there is no regular OEI occurrence where the plane flies 3+ hours to the diversion field.

If it does actually happen, that is untrapped by the proper recovery systems in place or the ground team, and the pilot fails to save the day
A) the accumulated death toll will be less that what's being directly caused by pilots today
B) the underlying techincal issue will be mitigated on a technical level.

Not looking forward to see the day arrive but the technology and system design will not be an obstacle.

In a sense, ask cui bono? Who triggered EASA to start researching the acceptable framework? Someone who is confident to comply with the outcome.

[Less Hair]

From my view there are lower hanging fruits if the industry wants to reduce costs than abandoning the concept of redundancy and handing everything over to datalinks, AI and software that might work or not in failure cases and combinations unknown before.

[CVividasku]

The reasoning is balanced when you consider all the accidents that didnt happen thanks to technology and systems (TCAS/TAWS,etc). Its not just pilots that prevent accidents. And for further consideration, what about those accidents where to avoid an accident the pilot was simply following a direction from a technology/system...the same system that could have avoided the accident if it were left to do so.
Not to mention, the numerous accidents where the pilots made a concious decision to ignore what the technology/system was advising them to do....
Alpha
No one talked about removing this type of life saving automation.
People on the other hand talked about removing life saving pilots.

[Bergerie1]

How would regulatory authorities regulate and certificate AI systems that, through self-learning, have learnt things about which the regulator knows nothing?

[pug]

No one talked about removing this type of life saving automation.
People on the other hand talked about removing life saving pilots.

Just read the working paper. Lots of talk of stricter Class One medical criteria (so that would remove half of the pilot workforce overnight I suspect), and concerns with cabin crew and passenger acceptance - paradigm shift mentioned again. Would think this would at least get rid of the P2F schemes out there now.. Every cloud and all that.

[EI_DVM]

I know we can't compare current generation automation with next gen, but even the other day while in a managed descent, the aircraft suddenly thought it was 9999' high on profile and increased rate of decent to 6000fpm to try re capture said profile, speed rocketing towards VMO.

A non event for two human pilots looking at it and rolling our eyes, as we simply pulled for open descent and the aircraft came to its senses and eased off, but it really doesn't inspire me with confidence that whatever autonomous aircraft they come up with won't have some similar issue and will be able to correct itself, if even the current generation aircraft which have been flying for 35 years haven't resolved simple computer brain-farts like this despite multiple avionic upgrades since its inception.

Not to mention that flight path control should be the simplest part of the flight to automate, it's the more nuanced issues, legalities, failures etc that should pose the complex automation task. Things like disruptive passengers, load sheet errors, birds ahead, fuel decisions on marginal weather days, assessing whether to commit or divert, airport's closed; do you hold or divert. Flock of birds hits the "artificial vision system", or AOA probes, ASI etc, how does the autonomous aircraft now cope?

I haven't done many auto-lands in my career so far but the ones I have done, particularly when there's any sort of wind element are always quite inconsistent. How will an advanced autopilot cope on days when it's gusting 60 knots? I've had the autopilot trip out on my numerous times over the years on stormy nights when it just says I'm done, over to you. And this is an aircraft again, that has been around for 35+ years and had numerous avionic updates since its inception.

CPDLC even now seems to have delays of 1-2 minutes sometimes to send messages, so these aircraft can't be remotely controlled if you have to factor in a 2 minute lag, they will have to be totally autonomous.

Far more problems to solve than can be mitigated just by paying two guys to sit up front and adapt to situations as they arise.

I'm not a luddite, in fact I've a background in software engineering before flying, but AI will really have to come on a lot more before it can cost effectively replace the flexibility provided by having two humans operating the aircraft, sat up front making decisions on the fly, if you'll pardon the pun.

I've no doubt we'll see aircraft in the next 15-20 years that could get from gate to gate with no intervention required from the humans on boards, the basics of managing the aircrafts flight path and taxi-route is not rocket science and in fact should be easily automatable. However, I can't see how this can consistently be done on every flight, we all know there are days where the thing runs on rails, these days could easily be automated. Then there's days where we're managing passenger issues, spotting dangerous goods irregularities, doing maintenance resets at outstations, changing taxi-routes on the fly, taxiing around potholes and other aircraft that have gotten stuck, picking fuel on marginal weather days off runways with marginal performance and then managing the options enroute, this will all still have to be done by humans.

So do I think we'll see an aircraft that can go from gate to gate with little or no intervention, absolutely. Do I think it will be possible to do this everyday, not a chance. And if you're going to need someone there 2-3 days a week, and if you can't tell in advance if today will be the day that HAL needs to have the CB reset, then invariably you'll need a crew on board every flight.

[MENELAUS]

I don’t think even Airbus are advocating no crew up the pointy end. They are just trying to reduce the numbers dramatically. Pro Tem. As for AI etc. It’s currently in its infancy. Therefore I think the only aspect of ‘AI’ being utilised is in the ground phase. The current iteration calls for control from the ground. By experienced people. With the pilot ( or pilots if you have to summon your 200 hr SFI trained colleague) being the back stop.
Note that nothing in the forgoing means that I approve of it, either on safety or moral or career preservation grounds. However, it is being actively looked at…and as I said, conducted on delivery flights. Which are technically not public transport flights. So FTL’s/ other rules don’t necessarily apply.
It remains to be seen how many Authorities sign up to it. EASA land, and the mega mind graduates of the Sorbonne and Paris-Sanclay seem very keen to advance it.
Just because they can, probably.

[Una Due Tfc]

As to VHF outages a fair part of the world has CPDLC coverage, satellite enabled. I can’t remember when I last had a prolonged comms outage, even in the Dark Continent

SATCOM outages are still common on the NAT.

[ExRR]

FAA and EASA seem to want to go in different directions:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/23/faa_pilot_computer/?td=rt-3a

Yet even as the FAA is looking to ensure pilots can handle planes without automated assistance, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is pushing for more automation. The EASA has filed a working paper to develop ways for commercial airlines to operate with a single pilot (https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/21/pilot_single/) rather than two of them. The initiative, born out of cost concerns and crew shortages, necessarily entails greater use of computer assistance.

"HAL, land the plane. … Siri, why isn't HAL responding? … Alexa? … Cortana? … Anyone?" ®

[Less Hair]

I really don't understand why an aviation authority would initiate a paradigm change away from redundancy out of airline cost control or staffing concerns? Or does this tell us the other message "only at the same level of safety we will permit single pilot ops" as in "never"?

[SaulGoodman]

Aircraft have crashed, had incidents with one, two or even three pilots in front and for reasons like inability to land fully serviceable aircraft in VMC or executing an improper go around. So the safety theory with more humans in front doesn't hold any water. Piloting errors still remain major cause of accidents. Improved safety is due to more automation. Militant flashing of Human factors doesn't really come to the rescue of the pilot but in fact becomes the worst advertisement for human presence in the cockpit. Humans in front don't provide 100% Safety . So why expect 100% safety from fully automated aircraft? As long as it is better than human operating aircraft and significantly cheaper it will be accepted. It's the March of technology it may be delayed but can't be stayed.

your reasoning is completely flawed. For every pilot error there is a multitude of pilot preventing accidents.

[Una Due Tfc]

And we have yet to see a computer committing suicide.

MCAS comes to mind, as does this attempt prevented by the crew:

https://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074

[pug]

I really don't understand why an aviation authority would initiate a paradigm change away from redundancy out of airline cost control or staffing concerns? Or does this tell us the other message "only at the same level of safety we will permit single pilot ops" as in "never"?

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. There are obviously some clever tech heads out there now developing this technology and proving concepts. This is all fine, but it doesn’t consider the commercial factor.

A chocolatier could make a chocolate fireguard, it would look like a real fireguard, but I don’t think it would get through the H&S risk assessments to be used as a fireguard. The chocolatier would therefore find that demand for these would mean mass producing them would not be commercially viable.

Glib analogy perhaps, but is the tail wagging the dog here? Do the airlines really want to reduce/eradicate the pilot role altogether? I suspect the answer is only if it saves them a lot of money. With the exception of long-haul cruise pilot, I don’t see how unmanned or single pilot operations would provide a cost saving for the foreseeable future.

[WillowRun 6-3]

A question not usually addressed in the back-and-forth on this subject is, "what technology are the advocates for single-pilot and autonomous flight ops relying upon?" Typically the advocates point to particular systems, like GPWS and its refinements, and assert that the human element is becoming or will become unnecessary.

That is, when the advocates get away with ignoring the second type of necessary technology - the computer software (or must we refer to code only as algorithms now?) capable of truly substituting for human flight crew members.

Case in point: show the effectiveness of code, operating today's flight control systems and those reasonably foreseen to be implemented within, say, five years, to figure out what was going wrong on the Delta flight out of LA a couple years ago in which the pilots first decided to dump fuel before returning to land. It was discussed in a thread on this forum, in part because of concern over where the fuel landed, and also among aviators about the sequence of, and reasons for, pilots' decisions and actions (though this SLF/attorney admits having forgotten the flight number).

Case in point: United flight out of Denver. P&W engine caught fire, due to a blade separation IIRC. All the P&W-powered United 777 aircraft were grounded. Flight returned to Denver safely. Show me the effectiveness of code.

Case in point, perhaps. American 191 out of Chicago ORD 25 May 1979. Engine separated and fell onto runway. Hydraulics severed, slats retracted, stall speed increased without any way for the flight crew to know these had occurred. (See NTSB final report, and as a veteran aviator poster on this forum has said in a different thread, it was a perfectly flyable airframe - if only they could have known what they were dealing with). Okay then, code advocates, fly the doomed, I mean fly the damn airplane.

[pug]

A question not usually addressed in the back-and-forth on this subject is, "what technology are the advocates for single-pilot and autonomous flight ops relying upon?" Typically the advocates point to particular systems, like GPWS and its refinements, and assert that the human element is becoming or will become unnecessary.

That is, when the advocates get away with ignoring the second type of necessary technology - the computer software (or must we refer to code only as algorithms now?) capable of truly substituting for human flight crew members.

Case in point: show the effectiveness of code, operating today's flight control systems and those reasonably foreseen to be implemented within, say, five years, to figure out what was going wrong on the Delta flight out of LA a couple years ago in which the pilots first decided to dump fuel before returning to land. It was discussed in a thread on this forum, in part because of concern over where the fuel landed, and also among aviators about the sequence of, and reasons for, pilots' decisions and actions (though this SLF/attorney admits having forgotten the flight number).

Case in point: United flight out of Denver. P&W engine caught fire, due to a blade separation IIRC. All the P&W-powered United 777 aircraft were grounded. Flight returned to Denver safely. Show me the effectiveness of code.

Case in point, perhaps. American 191 out of Chicago ORD 25 May 1979. Engine separated and fell onto runway. Hydraulics severed, slats retracted, stall speed increased without any way for the flight crew to know these had occurred. (See NTSB final report, and as a veteran aviator poster on this forum has said in a different thread, it was a perfectly flyable airframe - if only they could have known what they were dealing with). Okay then, code advocates, fly the doomed, I mean fly the damn airplane.

Like button required for this post.

I do think on the coding side though that NASA are in advanced stages of testing such capabilities. As far as the specifics of coding is concerned, I struggle to understand binary so it beats me.

The issue is such that the events you mentioned fall outside of the accepted risk, I doubt you would find them in any airline LOE programs. So does the advent of such a significant shift in operating procedures mean that a whole new aviation risk analysis should be completed? I.e in such a scenario would a human flight crew do a better job of saving the lives on those on board and avoiding crashing into the hospital for poorly puppies, than a computer system that might prioritise saving the lives of the 150 on board over potentially thousands on the ground?

Again, would the basis of such events even be considered being that they are probably outside of what is considered ‘accepted risk’? As if it’s is the case, there will only be the human factors argument, which autonomous aircraft would eradicate in terms of human control. I accept that you will have humans programming these machines, so the human element cannot be removed completely.

[safetypee]

It is interesting to follow this type of discussion where the subject is quickly misrepresented, which then degenerates into binary debate, us vs them, 2 vs 1 crew, with 'clear cut' black and white thinking.

An alternative is to reconsider the proposal for what it is - a working paper for the need to consider technological advances with respect to:

- the feasibility of extended minimum-crew operations (eMCO) two crew, only one on the flight deck in specific situations

and, at a later stage,

- single-pilot operations (SiPO).

There would be greater value, both for ourselves and the regulator to consider the issues. Operators have a wide range of knowledge with current systems; apply this to what is known about existing and new technologies so to contribute to the debate. Create the future opposed to decry its uncertainty.

There are already commercial single crew operations; where are the differences in risk. Two pax fatalities in a light twin vs two pax in a wide body; the ultimate debate is about unknown fatalities - unknowable outcomes, our fears.
This is not an easy debate, probably without solution with current thoughts and processes of safety management; thus time, need to think more widely:-

'The Illusion Of Risk Control'; very relevant in our modern complex world.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32939-0

N.B. Aven, chapt 3.0 and Paries 4.0, and conclusion.

[pug]

It is interesting to follow this type of discussion where the subject is quickly misrepresented, which then degenerates into binary debate, us vs them, 2 vs 1 crew, with 'clear cut' black and white thinking.

An alternative is to reconsider the proposal for what it is - a working paper for the need to consider technological advances with respect to:

- the feasibility of extended minimum-crew operations (eMCO) two crew, only one on the flight deck in specific situations

and, at a later stage,

- single-pilot operations (SiPO).

There would be greater value, both for ourselves and the regulator to consider the issues. Operators have a wide range of knowledge with current systems; apply this to what is known about existing and new technologies so to contribute to the debate. Create the future opposed to decry its uncertainty.

There are already commercial single crew operations; where are the differences in risk. Two pax fatalities in a light twin vs two pax in a wide body; the ultimate debate is about unknown fatalities - unknowable outcomes, our fears.
This is not an easy debate, probably without solution with current thoughts and processes of safety management; thus time, need to think more widely:-

'The Illusion Of Risk Control'; very relevant in our modern complex world.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32939-0

N.B. Aven, chapt 3.0 and Paries 4.0, and conclusion.

I know what you are saying, but the point is (as is also often the case with these news articles), that the technology is still decades away from being proven enough to generate sufficient passenger trust to make it a viable solution to a problem that might not currently exist anyway. It has to have a market otherwise it doesn’t go anywhere.

I think pilots are already actively involved in technological progress and new ways and means of operating throughout their career span. However you cannot be involved in developing these unless you know of the specific solutions on offer.

I think everyone knows it will happen eventually, but the timescales are far too optimistic. Again, single pilot cruise ops is fine. Single pilot commercial (max 19 passengers) is probably palatable currently (king air, many companies require a safety pilot still!), but if you’re talking aircraft capable of carrying 200 passengers then it’s another level of responsibility and convincing the market that it’s feasible and safe is not going to be an easy task, regardless of what the academics might theorise.

[FullWings]

I think one of the main problems (pointed out in earlier posts) is that single pilot operations for heavies and/or LH/ULH requires a level of safety for the aircraft that needs to assume no pilot at all, or at best, no pilot for significant periods.

I am reminded of a particular phrase when I see gushing projections from academics and aircraft manufactures: Full Self-Driving. It will happen, I’m sure of it, but just like working fusion power, it’s been lots of false starts and a huge amount of work to come. There is also a parallel between aircraft and vehicle automation levels, in that the low-hanging fruit of levels 1 & 2 have been picked off, so level 5 (full) must be just around the corner? Unfortunately, we’re still stuck at level 3, looking at 4 which still needs an element of human intervention, which is unlikely to go well if the last few hours of the journey have been spent on social media because the transport is “reliable" in human estimation. 3 & 4 are unwanted and dangerous, IMO, and we really need to go directly to 5 because the human is already well out of the loop in 3 & 4.

Another issue is certification. What will happen to the DAL-A/B/C stuff which was so heavily regulated in the past but will effectively have to be done by some sort of trained AI? “Yeah, we use GPT-3 to talk to ATC, a genetic algorithm to optimise the route and Stable Diffusion to create a pilot avatar. We’ve done some testing and it seems to work most of the time..."

[lucille]

Unmanned flights of increasing complexity are being demonstrated every day. Helo flying, the last bastion has been breached!

https://newatlas.com/military/black-hawk-helicopter-autonomous-rescue-mission-without-crew/

Garmin have an emergency autonomous autoland function for certain GA aircraft. It requires no pre-programming of destination and runway choice. Press the button and next thing you know you’re sitting at the end of a runway at an airport the system has chosen, with park brake on and engine shut down.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/aviation/five-ways-garmin-autoland-offers-peace-of-mind-to-aircraft-pilots-and-passengers/

There is probably no technical reason today why any aircraft can’t be retrofitted with equipment which would allow unmanned operation from gate to gate. Engine start, to shutdown.

As for emergencies? For the most part we are robots… Fly the aircraft, identify the problem, call for the checklist..etc.

Agreed there has been the occasional outlier which required inspirational problem solving by the crew outside the remit of the checklist. You can be sure researchers, designers and engineers are working feverishly to eliminate the likelihood of such unimagined combinations of failures.

I think that once 100% reliable, redundant and robust two way data comms can be guaranteed, the era of manned airliners will come to an end. I wonder how close they are to achieving this.

[Kennytheking]

Who is going to deliver this technology?

Boeing can't even build an normal aeroplane that stay in the air without crashing - you really want to trust them with this leap in technology?

Every time Airbus puts out an OEB, they are telling us that the computer cannot cope with something. The A380 cannot fly though an area of GPS jamming without it mangling the MMR, requiring a ground reset before you can do any form of FMS approach. It also has problems intercepting the localiser these days, something planes have been doing for almost a century. I'm not sure they are capable of delivering the level of reliable technology required for autonomous flight.

[3Greens]

Who is going to deliver this technology?

Boeing can't even build an normal aeroplane that stay in the air without crashing - you really want to trust them with this leap in technology?

Every time Airbus puts out an OEB, they are telling us that the computer cannot cope with something. The A380 cannot fly though an area of GPS jamming without it mangling the MMR, requiring a ground reset before you can do any form of FMS approach. It also has problems intercepting the localiser these days, something planes have been doing for almost a century. I'm not sure they are capable of delivering the level of reliable technology required for autonomous flight.
the max crosswind on my aircraft (350) is 30 knots for auto land. What do you do when it’s above that in an autonomous aircraft? Does it try? Divert automatically? Keep trying until it runs out of fuel..

[FullWings]

Garmin have an emergency autonomous autoland function for certain GA aircraft. It requires no pre-programming of destination and runway choice. Press the button and next thing you know you’re sitting at the end of a runway at an airport the system has chosen, with park brake on and engine shut down.

There is probably no technical reason today why any aircraft can’t be retrofitted with equipment which would allow unmanned operation from gate to gate. Engine start, to shutdown.
I think you’re conflating two separate problems: the first is how to get a light aircraft onto the ground in an emergency situation where the alternative is a certain crash involving injury or death, and the second is commercial routine everyday operation at the highest level of safety achievable, which encompasses that required by regulation. It’s not surprising that a solution is available for the first problem as anything is better than nothing, but I’m sure the legal disclaimer has more than one paragraph. There is no technical reason why I couldn’t build my own car, but it is unlikely to comply with many of the safety standards required to actually operate it on the public highway.
As for emergencies? For the most part we are robots… Fly the aircraft, identify the problem, call for the checklist..etc.
I would agree that for much of routine flying that is the case, but we are there for the times where it’s not immediately obvious, there are external factors and it’s necessary to draw on multiple career experiences to bring the situation to a successful conclusion. “Identify the problem” is often a convoluted and easily misjudged stage which can have adverse ramifications if not done quite right.
Agreed there has been the occasional outlier which required inspirational problem solving by the crew outside the remit of the checklist. You can be sure researchers, designers and engineers are working feverishly to eliminate the likelihood of such unimagined combinations of failures.
Eliminate the “known unknowns” or even the “unknown unknowns”? That is a heady proposition, and almost by definition unachievable.

I’m sure that we will have autonomous passenger aircraft in the future and I think there are several different ways of achieving that. One, by strictly bounding and curating the environment in which they operate, and another by using robust AGI to deliver something that has at least the safety performance of the equivalent human-piloted craft in a real environment full of edge cases.
I think that once 100% reliable, redundant and robust two way data comms can be guaranteed, the era of manned airliners will come to an end. I wonder how close they are to achieving this.
Starlink? They are already demonstrating terminals that work while in motion, so very soon. I don’t see that changing the way the aviation world works in terms of piloting, except HF comms will become redundant. Yay! And I can FaceTweet while over the middle of the Pacific. Double yay!

[vilas]

I cannot entirely agree with this. I have personally encountered situations where the automation (Garmin in GA airplanes) was, for programming thought/scenerio omission, enticing me into a situation I would not normally allow to develop. I resisted, reverted to the "old fashioned" way of piloting, and am here to write my opinion. If I had blindly followed the magenta line, I would not be here. Automation is an aid to a wise pilot. At a certain threshold (set by national regulation) a second pilot is a wise backup.

This possible future situation does concern me!
Inability to execute a well practiced normal go around and crashing there's a study by BEA and ICAO about 54 such accidents including 15 fatal which resulted in 954 deaths. So let's not exaggerate human presence. One Sully or Haynes doesn't make summer. Make no mistake, providing a possible human factor shield for simple, straightforward piloting errors will have a big part in demise of the human from cockpit.

[the_stranger]

Inability to execute a well practiced normal go around and crashing there's a study by BEA and ICAO about 54 such accidents including 15 fatal which resulted in 954 deaths. So let's not exaggerate human presence. One Sully or Haynes doesn't make summer. Make no mistake, providing a possible human factor shield for simple, straightforward piloting errors will have a big part in demise of the human from cockpit.
At the moment, i've been flying commercially for 20 years and in that time I've flown thousands of approaches without any incident, but had to intervene twice during an autoland otherwise those probably would have been disastrous.
However, those two events and the fact pilots "saved" the aircraft from a computer error, aren't mentioned in the newspaper, nor this site, nor anywhere.

While humans are flawed, so is technology and there are no indications that will change anytime soon. What is the ratio between incidents happening due to pilot error and incidents prevented due to pilot skill?

But that doesn't really matter, besides the consumers view on pilotless aircraf, it is all a matter of which produces a higher chance of an accident, which is more expensive and who carries that risk?

If a manufacturer can convince an airline and more importantly, an insurer that the chance of an incident is lower with computers i.s.o. humans, there will be pilotless aircraft (again assuming consumers are willing to play along).
The chance will never be zero, not now, not ever.

[Parkbremse]

I think there is little doubt that even with today's technology, you could build a plane that executes a full flight from parking position to parking position and do a decent job with it.

But Proof of concept is one thing, commercially viable is a different world.

Next to the valid arguments already raised here and obvious safety concerns one thing that gets overlooked is that simply the ground infrastructure is nowhere near supporting such a technology and will probably be not for a forseeable time. Todays Autoland technology requires CAT II/III facilities that only a fraction of airports have in both directions, so either a full automatic plane will be very limited in the area of operation (forget about NAT ETOPS routes) or there would be the need of a huge investment in ILS facilities worldwide to support a full automatic landing capability which I dont really see happening. So whats the alternative? SBAS? Eventually yes but we are still far off for many years in reliably demonstrating that this can be used for full automatic landings. And there is the possibility of signal jamming...

This is problem is also independent of single or no pilot cockpit as supposedly the single pilot is watching the automatics do its job. If the single pilot has to perform the landing because the automatics can't do it then from a redundancy perspective you need the second pilot anyways.

So which plane manufacturer would now pump billions into designing a plane with such limitations beyond their control? In 20 years maybe but now I dont think any.

So full automated planes without pilots in this century? Probably. Eventually technology and infrastructure will be there. In my lifetime? Maybe. In my last 25 years I have in this profession? Surely not.

[neville_nobody]

So is the industry prepared to move the weakest link in the chain from the flight deck to guy who wrote the code?? In reality this really doesn't do anything it would just maybe fix one problem and create a new one that doesn't exist at the moment.
The other issue is that fully automating aircraft doesn't really solve a problem because the accident rate is so low. However if you take a proven system and completely reinvent it you are introducing a very large risk factor which didn't exist.
The SAFEST way to fly is to have a highly advanced, automated aircraft with two pilots up the front.

[moosepileit]

How does a single pilot taxi? Cameras? Center seat? Robo-tug to runup area?

Will ATC issue instruction directly to the flight control system?

Is aviation coding, hardware and software and comm infrastructure secure and free of jams or saturation?

How is onboard radar offboarded to a "superdispatcher" or ground-based pilot?

Is there bandwidth for modern buffer-filling radar offboarding? If not- who pays/provides?

Looking ahead- Can manned and unmanned share the exact same flight profiles like two separate manned flights today?

[WideScreen]

Unmanned flights of increasing complexity are being demonstrated every day. Helo flying, the last bastion has been breached!

https://newatlas.com/military/black-hawk-helicopter-autonomous-rescue-mission-without-crew/

Garmin have an emergency autonomous autoland function for certain GA aircraft. It requires no pre-programming of destination and runway choice. Press the button and next thing you know you’re sitting at the end of a runway at an airport the system has chosen, with park brake on and engine shut down.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/aviation/five-ways-garmin-autoland-offers-peace-of-mind-to-aircraft-pilots-and-passengers/

There is probably no technical reason today why any aircraft can’t be retrofitted with equipment which would allow unmanned operation from gate to gate. Engine start, to shutdown.

As for emergencies? For the most part we are robots… Fly the aircraft, identify the problem, call for the checklist..etc.

Agreed there has been the occasional outlier which required inspirational problem solving by the crew outside the remit of the checklist. You can be sure researchers, designers and engineers are working feverishly to eliminate the likelihood of such unimagined combinations of failures.

I think that once 100% reliable, redundant and robust two way data comms can be guaranteed, the era of manned airliners will come to an end. I wonder how close they are to achieving this.
Your story describes the ideal world, correct for some 95% of the time.

Unfortunately, the flying public, nor the electoral public, will accept a 95% perfectness in real life (and the rest more or less ending up in disasters of varying seriousness).

Ever seen robots, spinning around in vain, when outside their pre-programmed capabilities or having a defect ?

AI is NOT human ingenuity. Feed an AI engine a lot of horse pictures, to recognize in the future horses on pictures and find out later on, the AI network "learned" to recognize the logo on the training pictures. AI (nowadays) is no more than a super-multidimensional recognition of acceptable solutions (and in practice fed with additional sensory input to validate/control the AI output/feedback), used to operate in the same super-multidimensional environment as its training. Change something in the environment, and suddenly the Teslas start stopping for the moon. If the electronics of a Tesla fails, it strikes, and the Tesla is frozen. Or road recognition algorithms/AI completely choke on just a piece of white paper behind a window opposite the long leg at a T-crossing.

When things go haywire (stuff fails, though unknown when), human ingenuity (based on interpretation of significantly more "training" results than can be fed into AI) is required, to solve the situation in an acceptable way. Even, as Pilot DAR writes, in situations considered "normal", it turns out the learning/algorithms aren't covering the complete super-dimensional circumstances to be considered for directing towards a safe outcome. We should not forget, when humans are "training", they embed (!) those training items in their already existing knowledge/capabilities outside the currently offered training items, not something AI-networks do on training.

Reliable comms will never exist (ever heard of solar flares?). Reliable GPS will never exist (think about GPS jammers, used in wartime or just for fun). The more vulnerabilities are build into society, the easier things can go wrong in unforeseen circumstances. Remember the Tesla that went on an extremely wild road-warrior crusade, just recently in China, in the end, killing 2 people. Is this really "ready in 2 years" for full autonomous driving ?

And, for the one-person cockpit occupation: When things go haywire, 2 (highly trained) people are needed to keep situational awareness and resolve the issue into a non-issue.

Back to the ideal Instagram world......

[ferry pilot]

A single pilot will never have complete sole and legal control of an airliner in normal flight operations. Full stop.

[sudden twang]

Is it true that Airbus are developing vending machines to replace the cabin crew ?

[FlightDetent]

Is it true that Airbus are developing vending machines to replace the cabin crew ?You could argue RYR trasformed them already.

[Nil by mouth]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/700x509/drone_pilot_license_part_107_checklist_jpeg_a187582fcae882cf c8b0e5646a118f01d47463c4.jpg

Perhaps the single pilots will be sitting in an air conditioned porta cabin in the future?

[GlobalNav]

How does a single pilot taxi? Cameras? Center seat? Robo-tug to runup area?

Will ATC issue instruction directly to the flight control system?

Is aviation coding, hardware and software and comm infrastructure secure and free of jams or saturation?

How is onboard radar offboarded to a "superdispatcher" or ground-based pilot?

Is there bandwidth for modern buffer-filling radar offboarding? If not- who pays/provides?

Looking ahead- Can manned and unmanned share the exact same flight profiles like two separate manned flights today?

And how does a prospective paying passenger with any sense decide to climb onboard single-pilot operated transport airplane?

[By George]

There is no doubt automation/AI etc can achieve just about anything these days, but I am not convinced it can handle multiple complex failures and 'think out of the square'. A fully automated aeroplane might have saved AF447 but I doubt it would have saved QF72 and QF32.

[safetypee]

pug, #81, et al.

Change the focus from technology to concepts.

The buzz words are AI and Big Data; we have them, but the important issue is what is their purpose, how to use them.

Alternatively, pilots and regulators should consider what and why particular functions are required, then assess the type and level of technological support and how that might be achieved.

An emerging concept is IA; Intelligent - to the user, and Assistance - provided by technology.

A simple, but valued example is EGPWS.

Technology, in background, continually monitoring parameters.

Provides Information, maps on request.

Alerts to parameter boundaries (Amber), a need to change focus or change the course of action.

Warning of hazards (Red), awareness, understanding, action.

Automatic action where able; pull up (currently pilot activated); compare with auto wind shear recovery - ACAS, or like Airbus AP engage below min speed.

Apply this thinking and the concepts to other operational areas, e.g. single pilot cruise; what functions are required, how to implement the technology for the users point of view, wary of unjustified perceptions of uncertain scenarios.
The users have the knowledge and expertise in operation; focus on the positive aspects, what might be done, how, why, when.

Re QF etc; not complex problem solving, just a simple question - what is still working, what do we need (one of the crew posed that question).

Re software etc; the coding or engineering are not the critical issues, it's what is specified for the software to do, and when. Operators, pilots can provide the better input, based not only on the present, but importantly with vision of the future, which unfortunately is generally unknowable, thus feared. Generate the future that we require, no more fearful than that which is managed today,
… but with an unlocked flight deck door.

[Less Hair]

It boils down to trusting technology instead of humans with command on board. But the software code, AI and network setups are made by humans as well. Humans that can make mistakes, write stupid code, have no idea about flying, weather or technology and such. I prefer somebody experienced on board who can decide whatever any unexpected scenario thrown at them requires. Failure modes are way too complex to be predicted and be handled by remote control, unreliable networks or onboard technology as we know it today.
In order to have one working pilot available at all times you need at least two of them on board. It will be a huge business to install all the machinery and network connections needed until this gets going. No wonder any issues get downplayed by the salespeople. No problem, when we find out whether it is working or not as advertised they will have made their money anyway.

I am not opposing technological innovations but it think it is much too early to hand over control to ground based or even AI command. There is nothing wrong with improving things but this goes in the wrong direction: Less redundancy and finally more costs not less.

[Kennytheking]

There is no doubt automation/AI etc can achieve just about anything these days, but I am not convinced it can handle multiple complex failures and 'think out of the square'. A fully automated aeroplane might have saved AF447 but I doubt it would have saved QF72 and QF32.

AF447 - I do believe a technology failure is what started that little event.

[slast]

Current state of implemented AI is pretty good but far from reliable enough for situations where there is risk of large scale loss of life. In medicine a failure usually inolves a single fatality iany seriopus event, so risk of using it for diagnosis is very different and failure rate vs human judgement is probably better and more acceptable? Current status perhaps illustrated by this story .... Astronomer in Twitter limbo over 'intimate' meteor - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63626769)

[Billro]

100% commercial flights will be pilotless in the future. When will that be, no one knows. Ai will easily fly a to b. Desperate for a back up pilot? Robot on a seperate operating system.

[artee]

Quite a timely interview of Richard Champion de Crespigny who was flying QF32 when one of the engines went "bang". By an Australia journalist Peter FitzSimons. As there were 2 check pilots on board, they had 5 pilots.

One-pilot cockpits? Here’s what QF32 hero and ‘Sully’ Sullenberger think (https://www.smh.com.au/national/one-pilot-cockpits-here-s-what-qf32-hero-and-sully-sullenberger-think-20221124-p5c14m.html)

Richard Champion de Crespigny flew with the RAAF for 11 years, before flying Qantas jets for three and a half decades. In 2010, he famously helped save the lives of 469 passengers and crew when an engine exploded on the Airbus A380 he was in command of. I spoke to him on Friday.

Fitz: Richard, the news this week is that – as a cost-saving exercise – regulators and a number of airlines around the globe are pushing towards just one pilot in the cockpit. We’ll get to that. But first, tell me the story of flight QF32 from Singapore to Sydney on November 4, 2010, while we reflect on how you would have gone if you were alone. Please start in the traditional manner for all disasters, with “First, I heard a loud bang...”

RDC: First I heard two loud bangs. The first one was an engine surge, or backfire of Engine No.2. The second was the sound of the turbine exploding into three pieces that exited the engine at over two and a half times the speed of sound.

Fitz: Captain, my captain, I’m with you in the cockpit, and we’re in trouble. What’s the damage?

RDC: It’s like a cluster-bomb. Shrapnel has hit the fuselage in over 400 locations, with 200 impacts on the fuselage, 200 on the wing, even 20 to the top of the eight-story high tail fin. 650 wires are cut, and half the networks fail. Twenty one of the aircraft’s 22 systems are degraded.

Fitz: Captain, I wish to report that, to use the technical term, we are in deep ****! What now?

continues... (https://www.smh.com.au/national/one-pilot-cockpits-here-s-what-qf32-hero-and-sully-sullenberger-think-20221124-p5c14m.html)

[GlobalNav]

Well, if they want to remove a seat from the flight deck, they may as well remove 150 from the cabin.

[ferry pilot]

For as long as pilots continue to fly airplanes there will be two of them. When the time comes for airplanes to be flown by other means, there may very well be a designated crew person aboard but his duties and responsibilities will not be what we now consider “ piloting” the airplane. Pilots ( plural ) fly the airplanes or something else does. That something else will not be a solo pilot.

[Klauss]

HI, I think that the accident record of large drones -and airplanes without pilots are drones, mindless drones- is not good. The only crash database for drones i know is here: https://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/
One has to subtract those that were shot down, but add those crashes that didn´t make it into this unofficial record. Given the relatively low number of large drones (hundrets, not tens of thousands) , I think that we are looking at many more crashes than piloted aircraft would have had.

[megan]

So is the industry prepared to move the weakest link in the chain from the flight deck to guy who wrote the code?? In reality this really doesn't do anything it would just maybe fix one problem and create a new one that doesn't exist at the moment.I'm afraid it does exist at the moment, an A320 was written off because both pilots pulling back stick were unable to flare the aircraft for landing.http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/8B514392-B79A-46DC-A7C8-DC1BA137D076/23171/2001_006_A_ENG1.pdf

A330 upset, note the use of the word "probably" in the report, not a comforting assessment. Captain retired with PTSD, one tough day at work. The report has a good discussion on computerisation.One of the aircraft's three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs) started outputting intermittent, incorrect values (spikes) on all flight parameters to other aircraft systems. Two minutes later, in response to spikes in angle of attack (AOA) data, the aircraft's flight control primary computers (FCPCs) commanded the aircraft to pitch down. At least 110 of the 303 passengers and nine of the 12 crew members were injured; 12 of the occupants were seriously injured and another 39 received hospital medical treatment.

Although the FCPC algorithm for processing AOA data was generally very effective, it could not manage a scenario where there were multiple spikes in AOA from one ADIRU that were 1.2 seconds apart. The occurrence was the only known example where this design limitation led to a pitch-down command in over 28 million flight hours on A330/A340 aircraft, and the aircraft manufacturer subsequently redesigned the AOA algorithm to prevent the same type of accident from occurring again.

Each of the intermittent data spikes was probably generated when the LTN-101 ADIRU's central processor unit (CPU) module combined the data value from one parameter with the label for another parameter. The failure mode was probably initiated by a single, rare type of internal or external trigger event combined with a marginal susceptibility to that type of event within a hardware component. There were only three known occasions of the failure mode in over 128 million hours of unit operation. At the aircraft manufacturer's request, the ADIRU manufacturer has modified the LTN-101 ADIRU to improve its ability to detect data transmission failures.

It is generally accepted that, for all but the simplest systems, it is impossible to guarantee the correctness of all the system requirements and associated assumptions.

The current aviation system has an enviable safety record; however, advances in technology are placing an increasing strain on our ability to assure the integrity of new and anticipated systems.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/3532398/ao2008070.pdfBoeing 777 upsetThe ADIRU OPS versions up to and including version -07 contained a latent software error in the algorithm to manage the sensor set used for computing flight control outputs which, after the unit went through a power cycle, did not recognise that accelerometer number-5 was unserviceable.

An anomaly existed in the component software hierarchy that allowed inputs from a known faulty accelerometer to be processed by the air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) and used by the primary flight computer, autopilot and other aircraft systems.

When the hardware failure occurred, combined with the software anomaly, the crew were faced with an unexpected situation that had not been foreseen.

The software anomaly was not detected in the original testing and certification of the ADIRU.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/24550/aair200503722_001.pdfPilot error would just be replaced by computer design and software coding errors.

[dr dre]

The “inevitable pilotless airliners” story happens every couple of years, someone finds the slightest comment to get media attention, technology aficionados make comments saying “it’s only a matter of time”, pilots say “not so fast”, manufacturers say “we’re exploring all possibilities”…… and eventually nothing eventuates, the stories are put to bed before the media cycle happens again.

Like the “Cathay A350 single pilot in cruise” stories that happened a few years ago. Once the media had run their stories it all went quiet.

[Less Hair]

Wouldn't remote controlled or AI guided airliners need some fail-safe guaranteed network connection at all times? How could this be guaranteed? What happens if Satellites get jammed or break down or reception gets affected by sun storms or similar? Then your shiny bot-plane suddenly flies on it's own into the next tropical depression without all the fall back safety promised?

[slast]

Megan, thanks for the links - I wasn't aware of the A320 one. Of course what none of these reports can say is what would likely happened if there had been no crew intervention at all, and the automated systems just been allowed to continue doing their thing.

Less hair: or if in times of international tension the likes of Putin/Xi simply state that they have and will use the technology to disrupt satellite signals? I’ve said in other threads that a fundamental reason it’s unlikely that uncrewed passenger ops will take place in the foreseeable future is product liability – take the pilots out and you have no flying scapegoat, ALL legal responsibility is transferred to the manufacturer or operator. You have to completely rewrite things like ICAO Annex 2, 2.4: Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft. “The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.”

The philosophical question is this. The industry can say “we have a 100% (not 99.9999999%) guarantee that we can take care of ALL CONCEIVABLE combinations of failures using neural network AI”. Are there INconceivable failures of mechanical parts, software coding and environmental aspects? How do you deal with that? They seem to have occurred in quite a few events.

And to deal with loss of comms for some reason – easily conceivable - all this stuff has to be on board each aircraft. The presence of (a) pilot or pilots provides the only totally independent intelligence able to make an attempt (not guaranteed successful) to deal with an inconceivable combination of events. When the detailed “terms and conditions” are written by the manufacturers lawyers, the operators lawyers are going to say “no way”!

[dr dre]

Megan, thanks for the links - I wasn't aware of the A320 one. Of course what none of these reports can say is what would likely happened if there had been no crew intervention at all, and the automated systems just been allowed to continue doing their thing.

It’s not just the incidents that are reported in the press and are known to the world.

What about the probably 100 incidents a day worldwide that we never hear of where an airliner suffers an autopilot malfunction and the pilots simply disconnect, manually fly and then just write up the defect in the tech log? Or any other system defect automation can’t handle and again all that is written about it is a tech log entry?

[slast]

Exactly.... the ATSB B777 report has some interesting material about the history of the ADIRU involved, as well as operating with disatch deviations.

[Lookleft]

Exactly.... the ATSB B777 report has some interesting material about the history of the ADIRU involved, as well as operating with disatch deviations.

Had the SAARU accelerometer inputs not moderated the ADIRU accelerometer inputs the MAS 777 would have been the first FBW aircraft to self-destruct due to software failure. When the pilots disconnected the autopilot the aircraft was finally under control. How would AI and an autopilot have coped with the spurious windshear warning on final back into Perth? The pilots disregarded it as they knew none existed and finally got that aircraft on the ground which was the safest place for it. Its ok though because the 777 is a design from the 90's that will soon be replaced by......

[POBJOY]

With this 'RUSH' to work from home, they can let the pilots operate the flight deck from home, and the cabin crew can be 'upskilled' to deal with any issues that may occur, on the other hand the upskilling will have to include EFTO, Bomb Threats, diversions, multiple bird strikes, cabin fires, cargo fires, fuel freezing, tea pot failure, depressurisation, battery fires, and the millions of other items than can mess up the day. I think they do well to manage on two crew, prob better to get an extra on in to reduce the workload.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Am I the only one who fails to see the relevance of whether pilot(s) are single, married or in a committed long-term relationship?

On an unrelated topic, a counter argument to prospective solo operation of commercial air transport might be to consider further multi-skilling of first officers. All that unnecessary spare capacity (in between in-flight crises) could perhaps be employed in other on-board areas, such as children's entertainer, or singer-pianist at the A380's walk-up bar lounge?

[DaveReidUK]

Boozy lunch ??

[ATC Watcher]

It’s not just the incidents that are reported in the press and are known to the world.

What about the probably 100 incidents a day worldwide that we never hear of where an airliner suffers an autopilot malfunction and the pilots simply disconnect, manually fly and then just write up the defect in the tech log? Or any other system defect automation can’t handle and again all that is written about it is a tech log entry?
Indeed. An this is why we have to move quiclky to what we call "Safety 2 " which is that in addition to only investigating and acting after incidents or accidents , we must look at and learn from situations where it all ended well , mosty because of human actions , and those are curently not looked at.to make changes . When we do we will most probably find that humans " saved the day " hunderds , (and I would even argue possible thoushands) of times a year compared to the 20 or so whrere they actively contributed to an incident/accident.

QF32 is a good example and I talked with De Crepigny on this long ago , thinking outside the box saved them , no following the check lists or EICAS messages , which a computer system would have .

Full automnation carry pax ? not in our lifetime. but sincle pilot ? well Embraer is working very seriously on it , the only major diference between their Business jets and their airliners is the number of pax in the back. The cockpit automation is the same . When the number of flying hours of their single pilots business jets will be large enough to demonstrate ( or not) the safety case things might change and at least keep the discussion alive . But currently , not a good idea to implement.

[Less Hair]

The two-man cockpit B-21 is said to be optionally manned. I wonder if this technology is supposed to trickle down into the commercial world one day?