The End Of Single Crew Commercial Flights ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm busy so let's confine ourselves to one or two points.
Nowhere did I say that crew regularly become incapacitated. I never even alluded to it being a regular ocurrence yet you wrote:
Why would you do that?
If you wish to stray from what I have and have not written and resort to petulance please don't. My substance is that I have a few thousand hours experience (each) of both single and multi-crew and have taught CRM and Human Performance.
The blacking out/autopilot statement was ludicrous. C'mon, admit it. ........... "He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot." How can you read that and not cringe?
The car seatbelt analogy is valid. CRM has moved on in leaps and bounds and what was accepted wisdom years ago is no longer the case. Just because some operations have been conducted one way in the past does not mean they will continue to be so.
You did with your reference to risk shift.
Yet you used quotation marks. I apologise for not being able to understand your misuse of punctuation.
Of course incapacitation is a contributing factor to multi-crew requirement. No regulatory authoruty in their right mind would discount it.
Really, this is going nowhere. You posted somewhat emotively, said that I had written things I had not, formed your own conclusions without benefit of sufficient information (on me) and accuse me of being an idiot. Given this are you at all surprised I have no desire to continue any discussion with you?
Nowhere did I say that crew regularly become incapacitated. I never even alluded to it being a regular ocurrence yet you wrote:
Why are you assuming there will be an incapacitation of the crew regularly?
............but it is to Flintstone, so he doesn't have to justify it!
The blacking out/autopilot statement was ludicrous. C'mon, admit it. ........... "He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot." How can you read that and not cringe?
The car seatbelt analogy is valid. CRM has moved on in leaps and bounds and what was accepted wisdom years ago is no longer the case. Just because some operations have been conducted one way in the past does not mean they will continue to be so.
I have never written that single crew is safer than multi crew.
I was not intending to quote you.
Of course incapacitation is a contributing factor to multi-crew requirement. No regulatory authoruty in their right mind would discount it.
Really, this is going nowhere. You posted somewhat emotively, said that I had written things I had not, formed your own conclusions without benefit of sufficient information (on me) and accuse me of being an idiot. Given this are you at all surprised I have no desire to continue any discussion with you?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAB said, 'We are taught that a group decision can be more hazardous than any one individual for a reason, and that is to avoid bad decisions caused by this element of psychology.'
(I am not sure what you are implying by your above statement, that unilateral decisions are better than multi-lateral ones, also, in aviation there is never normally a 'group decision' as you put it, as that is the sole job and responsibility of the commander. However, a good commander will surely hear what his crew all think and act on all inputs, but it is never a group decision.)
And every CRM course tells us several minds with different points of view, different ideas, different understandings of the problem are far better than any single mind which is why it is always better to involve all and then the leader use all available information to make the decision.
Multiple pilots will allow for for this situation to flourish, but in a single pilot operation there is no one to challenge the individuals decision making.
I think just having someone there for the chance that when something does go wrong, and it is in bad weather and it is going to be a non-precision approach, (oddly this is what we train for, when everything is against us and it is our worst day) then the value of the second pilot to reduce the workload, to offer advice and allow input from someone thinking rationally is worth his weight in gold and I believe this is why multi pilot operations will always be safer than a single pilot operation.
You also said, 'Perhaps you didn't bring it up, but South Coast did, then you replied to my reply to him.'
What did I bring up?
(I am not sure what you are implying by your above statement, that unilateral decisions are better than multi-lateral ones, also, in aviation there is never normally a 'group decision' as you put it, as that is the sole job and responsibility of the commander. However, a good commander will surely hear what his crew all think and act on all inputs, but it is never a group decision.)
And every CRM course tells us several minds with different points of view, different ideas, different understandings of the problem are far better than any single mind which is why it is always better to involve all and then the leader use all available information to make the decision.
Multiple pilots will allow for for this situation to flourish, but in a single pilot operation there is no one to challenge the individuals decision making.
I think just having someone there for the chance that when something does go wrong, and it is in bad weather and it is going to be a non-precision approach, (oddly this is what we train for, when everything is against us and it is our worst day) then the value of the second pilot to reduce the workload, to offer advice and allow input from someone thinking rationally is worth his weight in gold and I believe this is why multi pilot operations will always be safer than a single pilot operation.
You also said, 'Perhaps you didn't bring it up, but South Coast did, then you replied to my reply to him.'
What did I bring up?
Last edited by south coast; 1st Jan 2008 at 17:55.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aurigny & EASA/EU-OPS
I believe that Aurigny, being based in the Channel Islands and therefore not part of the EU, will carry on under JAR-OPS regulations until / unless the Guernsey Authorities decide to accept EU-OPS.
That is if I understood correctly the nice CAA gentlemen who did the presentation at Cambridge last year.
That is if I understood correctly the nice CAA gentlemen who did the presentation at Cambridge last year.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone,
Sorry, I though it was obvious. You were disputing that a second crewman made the flight only marginally safer, with the argument that if the captain is incapacitated the flight is a lot safer. Of course that still makes a flight only marginally safer unless there is a high probability of crew incapacitation. Therefore your argument implies you believe there to be such a high probability. Either that or you were misunderstand the whole concept of flight safety, or are being dishonest in the way you make your argument!
You might well cringe, but then you still don't understand the rather simple point I was making. I really didn't think I would have to explain it to aviation professionals, and it slightly concerns me that I do!
Flight safety is based on probability. The systems we require redundancy for in commercial aviation have a relatively high probability of failure. That is why we have all experienced failures in some, as I pointed out. That is a known hazard, so we have redundancy. There is a tiny probability of multiple failure, but the risk of that has to be balanced with practicality or no aircraft would ever eave the ground.
The pilot has a very low probability of "failure". I was using my acquaintances as a crude straw poll to illustrate this. I was honest in admitting I know one person who has experienced such while holding a CAA medical. However I know a lot of pilots, and the problem he suffered would only have resulted in a flight-safety hazard had it occured in a critical stage of flight, as he only ever had one episode and it was brief. That all goes to show how low the probability is of pilot incapacitation causing an accident.
Sorry to sound harsh, but if that makes you cringe I think you might be in the wrong job.
I did mention risk shift. I also said "and first make sure you know the meaning of "can be" as compared to "is" so as not to make an idiot of yourself by quoting my last post". "Can be" means that there are certain circumstances where that might be the case. I will assume that is your poor English rather than that you don't understand what you are apparently teaching!
My post might have been a little emotive, but if you misrepresent what I say and use emotive language like dismissing my points as "so far off" then I am bound to get somewhat irritated.
Sorry, I though it was obvious. You were disputing that a second crewman made the flight only marginally safer, with the argument that if the captain is incapacitated the flight is a lot safer. Of course that still makes a flight only marginally safer unless there is a high probability of crew incapacitation. Therefore your argument implies you believe there to be such a high probability. Either that or you were misunderstand the whole concept of flight safety, or are being dishonest in the way you make your argument!
You might well cringe, but then you still don't understand the rather simple point I was making. I really didn't think I would have to explain it to aviation professionals, and it slightly concerns me that I do!
Flight safety is based on probability. The systems we require redundancy for in commercial aviation have a relatively high probability of failure. That is why we have all experienced failures in some, as I pointed out. That is a known hazard, so we have redundancy. There is a tiny probability of multiple failure, but the risk of that has to be balanced with practicality or no aircraft would ever eave the ground.
The pilot has a very low probability of "failure". I was using my acquaintances as a crude straw poll to illustrate this. I was honest in admitting I know one person who has experienced such while holding a CAA medical. However I know a lot of pilots, and the problem he suffered would only have resulted in a flight-safety hazard had it occured in a critical stage of flight, as he only ever had one episode and it was brief. That all goes to show how low the probability is of pilot incapacitation causing an accident.
Sorry to sound harsh, but if that makes you cringe I think you might be in the wrong job.
I did mention risk shift. I also said "and first make sure you know the meaning of "can be" as compared to "is" so as not to make an idiot of yourself by quoting my last post". "Can be" means that there are certain circumstances where that might be the case. I will assume that is your poor English rather than that you don't understand what you are apparently teaching!
My post might have been a little emotive, but if you misrepresent what I say and use emotive language like dismissing my points as "so far off" then I am bound to get somewhat irritated.
Last edited by Life's a Beech; 2nd Jan 2008 at 13:01.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast
I really think you should look back on all your HP&L, MCC and CRM training, because you seem to have missed some important points. Yes, in ideal circumstances everything you say is correct, although the safety implications in small, slow and simple aircraft are marginal. However the circumstances when things are at their most critical are never ideal. You should have been shown cases in your MCC/CRM training where a flight-deck crew made a bad decision because each thought the others must be happy with it. You should also have seen cases where the cockpit gradient was wrong, which you seem to dismiss.
In a single-crew AOC operation each pilot passes two flight tests and one line check each year, as a statutary requirement. Most will also undergo a quality audit assessment flight and often a CAA ops assessment as well. Because they don't tend to stay long on one type, most will receive some line training on a new type as well. So their decisions processes are monitored.
Please can you actually read this bit. No-one denies that two crew are safer than one. The point is that this does not mean that one crew is unsafe
. Safety is a balance. (P.S. This is the bit you brought up, off topic, then Flintstone jumped on misunderstanding the whole point).
Please can you people stop insisting that two-crew operations are safer than single-crew, when that has never been in dispute and has no bearing on the thread?
I really think you should look back on all your HP&L, MCC and CRM training, because you seem to have missed some important points. Yes, in ideal circumstances everything you say is correct, although the safety implications in small, slow and simple aircraft are marginal. However the circumstances when things are at their most critical are never ideal. You should have been shown cases in your MCC/CRM training where a flight-deck crew made a bad decision because each thought the others must be happy with it. You should also have seen cases where the cockpit gradient was wrong, which you seem to dismiss.
In a single-crew AOC operation each pilot passes two flight tests and one line check each year, as a statutary requirement. Most will also undergo a quality audit assessment flight and often a CAA ops assessment as well. Because they don't tend to stay long on one type, most will receive some line training on a new type as well. So their decisions processes are monitored.
Please can you actually read this bit. No-one denies that two crew are safer than one. The point is that this does not mean that one crew is unsafe
. Safety is a balance. (P.S. This is the bit you brought up, off topic, then Flintstone jumped on misunderstanding the whole point).Please can you people stop insisting that two-crew operations are safer than single-crew, when that has never been in dispute and has no bearing on the thread?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point to be made to Flintstone and South Coast equally
How come I am in agreement with every aviation authority I know of, including the all the JAA authorities and the FAA? All accept single-crew operations in light twins to be safe. I believe the FAA allows more than JAA would, and the ops manual I work to is stricter than JAR-OPS.
How come I am in agreement with every aviation authority I know of, including the all the JAA authorities and the FAA? All accept single-crew operations in light twins to be safe. I believe the FAA allows more than JAA would, and the ops manual I work to is stricter than JAR-OPS.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life's a Beech:
I cannot entirely agree with that. I would say flight safety (or rather a safe flight) is a result of doing things properly, regardless of the probability of things going wrong. Pilots should be trained to deal with events regardless of probability.
When the concept of a 'risky shift' is used, it refers to a group decision, rather than specifically a two-crew decision and is also more applicable to decision making when faced with a problem that still includes risks in the outcome, rather than a tactical, operational or strategic type problem. I can't see any merit whatsoever in using this term to attack multi-crew ops or defend single-crew ops.
Surely anyone can see that multi-crew must be more safe for more time than it is less safe (if indeed it is). Also why would anyone defend flying single-crew? Surely it must be more efficient, comfortable, easier and safer with an additional pilot in the system.
The only reason I can see to defend single-crew commercial flying would be if those doing so (who are currently flying single-crew) are not capable of flying multi-crew. In this case an 'attitude adjustment' may be required, as single-crew commercial flying is on it's way out, especially after that Air Med Seneca accident.
Flight safety is based on probability.
Two pilots can be safer than one, but they are not always. If you actually bothered to listen in your human performance lectures then you would remember the term "risky shift". However that is not the debate you make the same mistake as South coast. The consideration is not whether multi-crew is safer, but whether single-crew is unsafe.
Surely anyone can see that multi-crew must be more safe for more time than it is less safe (if indeed it is). Also why would anyone defend flying single-crew? Surely it must be more efficient, comfortable, easier and safer with an additional pilot in the system.
The only reason I can see to defend single-crew commercial flying would be if those doing so (who are currently flying single-crew) are not capable of flying multi-crew. In this case an 'attitude adjustment' may be required, as single-crew commercial flying is on it's way out, especially after that Air Med Seneca accident.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plinkton
However properly a regulator or operator does the job of regulating an operation there is always a finite probability of an accident. Therefore flight safety must always be based on probability.
Risk shift was taught to me as simply when a group decision (of any sized group, even 2) is more risky than the decision any one group member would have made on his own. It has certainly influenced air accidents, we are taught about it in HP&L and given case studies in MCC and CRM courses. It doesn't only happen in decisions with risky outcomes, in fact it often refers to decisions where a safe course was available but a very unsafe course taken because each person assumed that if it wasn't safe then the other person would say so, or that someone else was making the decision where in fact no decision had been made, so a default course of action is taken. It certainly refers to tactical operational decisions, and strategic decisions are not relevant to the discussion, as the time scale means that single crew can refer to their organisation for help there.
Sorry to shout but I do not deny that overall two crew is safer than one. However, please find out what the thread is about before posting. That does not mean that single-crew operations are unsafe, or indeed that on occasion a crew can make a decision that is less safe than any one of them would have made on his own. Why have I had to write this paragraph in all the last few posts I have made? Is English comprehension really so bad in pilots?
Why is it more efficient, comfortable or easier with two crew? What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself? Why should pilots not want to fly single crew? All the pilots I have line trained are perfectly capable of flying multi-crew, have excellent CRM (it is still required as a course for single-crew) or they could not do the job well, so why make up insulting suggestions that people you don't know can't get on in a crew? Many of our pilots have done extremely well afterwards in airlines, with command on minimum time.
What on Earth makes you think single-crew operations are on their way out? Why should the Air-Med accident mean that? Did the Tenerife accident mean that all jet operations were banned? Accidents happen in aviation. They always have, and always will.
However properly a regulator or operator does the job of regulating an operation there is always a finite probability of an accident. Therefore flight safety must always be based on probability.
Risk shift was taught to me as simply when a group decision (of any sized group, even 2) is more risky than the decision any one group member would have made on his own. It has certainly influenced air accidents, we are taught about it in HP&L and given case studies in MCC and CRM courses. It doesn't only happen in decisions with risky outcomes, in fact it often refers to decisions where a safe course was available but a very unsafe course taken because each person assumed that if it wasn't safe then the other person would say so, or that someone else was making the decision where in fact no decision had been made, so a default course of action is taken. It certainly refers to tactical operational decisions, and strategic decisions are not relevant to the discussion, as the time scale means that single crew can refer to their organisation for help there.
Sorry to shout but I do not deny that overall two crew is safer than one. However, please find out what the thread is about before posting. That does not mean that single-crew operations are unsafe, or indeed that on occasion a crew can make a decision that is less safe than any one of them would have made on his own. Why have I had to write this paragraph in all the last few posts I have made? Is English comprehension really so bad in pilots?
Why is it more efficient, comfortable or easier with two crew? What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself? Why should pilots not want to fly single crew? All the pilots I have line trained are perfectly capable of flying multi-crew, have excellent CRM (it is still required as a course for single-crew) or they could not do the job well, so why make up insulting suggestions that people you don't know can't get on in a crew? Many of our pilots have done extremely well afterwards in airlines, with command on minimum time.
What on Earth makes you think single-crew operations are on their way out? Why should the Air-Med accident mean that? Did the Tenerife accident mean that all jet operations were banned? Accidents happen in aviation. They always have, and always will.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it more efficient, comfortable or easier with two crew? What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself?
If you were flying multi-crew, the person sitting next to you would not be 'doing nothing'.
You can't stop progress, I think 'The End Of Single Crew Commercial Flights' will happen soon.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Monaco
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dive Buddies v Copilots
I see a similar situation in Scuba diving:
Padi doctrines teach that divers must be paired.
Great treory, however many times the pair have never met before, and the so called SOP's are assumed, and even sometimes discussed.
So when a problem actually occurs, in theory they can resolve the problem together, and live to dive another day.
BUT now get an experienced diver, (Captain), and a very inexperienced diver low hours, and not very experienced, and not really current, ( new T/Red Copilot). Both situations are dangerous, as the Captain often has to do both jobs, as the copilot is so far behind the yoke, he is a liability. Add language and cultural differences, and you will see how this plot line develops.
I have dived with students, try dives, and minimal experienced divers, and I hope that if they had a problem, I could resolve it................but if I had a problem and needed them NOW, I would die.
I see the same in the cockpit, I have flown with total idiots, and been Captain, fyrst officer, and instructor, and perhaps safety plot too.
That is dangerous.
When flying SP in the good old days, I was 100% prepared for the problems, and only myself to blaim. 5000 hrs SP, piston twins, and light jets.
Just my 1/2p worth...
Padi doctrines teach that divers must be paired.
Great treory, however many times the pair have never met before, and the so called SOP's are assumed, and even sometimes discussed.
So when a problem actually occurs, in theory they can resolve the problem together, and live to dive another day.
BUT now get an experienced diver, (Captain), and a very inexperienced diver low hours, and not very experienced, and not really current, ( new T/Red Copilot). Both situations are dangerous, as the Captain often has to do both jobs, as the copilot is so far behind the yoke, he is a liability. Add language and cultural differences, and you will see how this plot line develops.
I have dived with students, try dives, and minimal experienced divers, and I hope that if they had a problem, I could resolve it................but if I had a problem and needed them NOW, I would die.
I see the same in the cockpit, I have flown with total idiots, and been Captain, fyrst officer, and instructor, and perhaps safety plot too.
That is dangerous.
When flying SP in the good old days, I was 100% prepared for the problems, and only myself to blaim. 5000 hrs SP, piston twins, and light jets.
Just my 1/2p worth...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plinkton
Of course they would be doing nothing. In light twins there is nothing for them to do! Most of the flight there is little for me to do!
I have flown with a pilot's assistant and given them the radio and perhaps the plog, even the navigation (I have also been the "pilot's assistant"). However this actually makes things less efficient. I have to make decisions and communicate with them, so replies to radio calls are delayed, leading to problems of being stepped on by ATC's repeat, and I can get out of the loop with flight progress unless I look at the plog too so it is passed back and forth. I also have to monitor the navigation to keep situational awareness, so might as well do it myself. People who don't have the capacity to do it all themselves without difficulty just don't pass a line check in this business (yes in initial line training the tasks are divided for the first few sectors, unless the new pilot is especially good, while he learns how to manage the cockpit. However ten sectors usually leaves the pilot easily able to cope with everything).
The only exception would be on final approach in very poor weather, when another pair of eyes would be very useful, but the instrument approach minima are different single-crew. However we simply accept that we fly to the more restrictive minima, and it is very rarely an issue.
Why do you define the end of certain flight operations "progress"? Why should change happen for change's sake, i.e. why should we not stop something you define as "progress"?
Silverspoon
Thanks for that. Of course it doesn't mean single pilot is safer or even as safe overall (as I have always accepted), but it again shows reasons why multi-crew operations are not always necessarily safer.
Of course they would be doing nothing. In light twins there is nothing for them to do! Most of the flight there is little for me to do!
I have flown with a pilot's assistant and given them the radio and perhaps the plog, even the navigation (I have also been the "pilot's assistant"). However this actually makes things less efficient. I have to make decisions and communicate with them, so replies to radio calls are delayed, leading to problems of being stepped on by ATC's repeat, and I can get out of the loop with flight progress unless I look at the plog too so it is passed back and forth. I also have to monitor the navigation to keep situational awareness, so might as well do it myself. People who don't have the capacity to do it all themselves without difficulty just don't pass a line check in this business (yes in initial line training the tasks are divided for the first few sectors, unless the new pilot is especially good, while he learns how to manage the cockpit. However ten sectors usually leaves the pilot easily able to cope with everything).
The only exception would be on final approach in very poor weather, when another pair of eyes would be very useful, but the instrument approach minima are different single-crew. However we simply accept that we fly to the more restrictive minima, and it is very rarely an issue.
Why do you define the end of certain flight operations "progress"? Why should change happen for change's sake, i.e. why should we not stop something you define as "progress"?
Silverspoon
Thanks for that. Of course it doesn't mean single pilot is safer or even as safe overall (as I have always accepted), but it again shows reasons why multi-crew operations are not always necessarily safer.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAB said, 'In a single-crew AOC operation each pilot passes two flight tests and one line check each year, as a statutary requirement.'
We all do this for JAR-OPS, a LST, OPC and a Line check, so that is not unique to single pilot AOC operators, not sure what you meant by this.
LAB said, 'South Coast - I really think you should look back on all your HP&L, MCC and CRM training, because you seem to have missed some important points.'
I really think you should go back and re-read as you have failed to understand the concept of multi crew operations, perhaps that is why you are not in one.
LAB also said this, 'What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself?'
With such a mind set it is probably better you stay as a single pilot operation because no one wants to sit next to someone who knows it all.
We all do this for JAR-OPS, a LST, OPC and a Line check, so that is not unique to single pilot AOC operators, not sure what you meant by this.
LAB said, 'South Coast - I really think you should look back on all your HP&L, MCC and CRM training, because you seem to have missed some important points.'
I really think you should go back and re-read as you have failed to understand the concept of multi crew operations, perhaps that is why you are not in one.
LAB also said this, 'What is efficient about having someone else sitting next to me, doing nothing? Why would it be easier, when I am perfectly capable of doing the whole job myself?'
With such a mind set it is probably better you stay as a single pilot operation because no one wants to sit next to someone who knows it all.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast
I realise all operations have the check flights. However I was not discussing multi-crew operations. You suggested that the decision-making processes of single-crew pilots was in doubt. I was pointing out how they are monitored. I am not sure how the tests undergone in a multi-crew operation has anything to do with that. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not.
I have never tried to fly a multi-crew aeroplane, that is why I am not flying in one. Some of us are currently enjoying working single-crew and don't yet want anything else. I am sure that one day I will, but I have no problem with CRM or the concepts. I have actually pointed out where you misunderstand them, and you cannot answer that so I suspect I know them rather better than you do.
You still haven't explained why it would be more efficient to have someone else there. It isn't true just because you say it. You might, for all I know, be a captain, but that does not mean we have to accept your word for everything off the flight-deck, and with your attitude I am very glad you are not my captain! It suggests a dictatorial attitude, with no consideration for the opinions of others.
It certainly isn't more efficient to close down a whole sector of the industry! Think of that next time you're tech in the back end of Eastern Europe and need a small part delivering urgently.
I realise all operations have the check flights. However I was not discussing multi-crew operations. You suggested that the decision-making processes of single-crew pilots was in doubt. I was pointing out how they are monitored. I am not sure how the tests undergone in a multi-crew operation has anything to do with that. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not.
I have never tried to fly a multi-crew aeroplane, that is why I am not flying in one. Some of us are currently enjoying working single-crew and don't yet want anything else. I am sure that one day I will, but I have no problem with CRM or the concepts. I have actually pointed out where you misunderstand them, and you cannot answer that so I suspect I know them rather better than you do.
You still haven't explained why it would be more efficient to have someone else there. It isn't true just because you say it. You might, for all I know, be a captain, but that does not mean we have to accept your word for everything off the flight-deck, and with your attitude I am very glad you are not my captain! It suggests a dictatorial attitude, with no consideration for the opinions of others.
It certainly isn't more efficient to close down a whole sector of the industry! Think of that next time you're tech in the back end of Eastern Europe and need a small part delivering urgently.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is running amuck.
If I understand correctly, the requirement for single crew IFR commercial ops is that the aircraft needs to have an autopilot.
It was then pointed out that the channel island operators with twin islanders and trilanders would have a problem with this requirement.
Somewhere this debate turned into a debate on singlecrew rather than multicrew operations.
Now, I have flown both types of operation, GA and Airline and Corporate. While I cannot deem single crew operations as unsafe, I truly believe that multi crew is safer.
My main point of contention is that Life's a beech seems to be the defender of single crew, (even potentially hazardous situations where the pilot blacks-out?!), because the second crew member has nothing to do?
He admits that he has never flown multicrew ops, but has learnt to be confident and cautious on his own. Great. I just feel that as others have pointed out he hasn't quite got the concept of multi crew...
Quote
Of course they would be doing nothing. In light twins there is nothing for them to do! Most of the flight there is little for me to do!
I have flown with a pilot's assistant and given them the radio and perhaps the plog, even the navigation (I have also been the "pilot's assistant"). However this actually makes things less efficient. I have to make decisions and communicate with them, so replies to radio calls are delayed, leading to problems of being stepped on by ATC's repeat, and I can get out of the loop with flight progress unless I look at the plog too so it is passed back and forth. I also have to monitor the navigation to keep situational awareness, so might as well do it myself. People who don't have the capacity to do it all themselves without difficulty just don't pass a line check in this business (yes in initial line training the tasks are divided for the first few sectors, unless the new pilot is especially good, while he learns how to manage the cockpit. However ten sectors usually leaves the pilot easily able to cope with everything).
The only exception would be on final approach in very poor weather, when another pair of eyes would be very useful, but the instrument approach minima are different single-crew. However we simply accept that we fly to the more restrictive minima, and it is very rarely an issue.
End Quote.
Honestly, The above quote worries me. CRM issues galore! I love the " I might as well do it myself bit" - priceless!
Fill your boots. Have a great life, and enjoy the flying. Each to their own, but I don't think Life's a beech is in a position to comment on Multi Crew Ops. (Even though he has attended and listened to all the Human factors / CRM lectures! - and picked up on Risk shift - which is taught so that crews can be aware of it, enhancing safety, surely not a reason to dismiss the whole concept of multi crew!)
Back to the point? Was it single crew with autopilot? or no single crew at all?
If I understand correctly, the requirement for single crew IFR commercial ops is that the aircraft needs to have an autopilot.
It was then pointed out that the channel island operators with twin islanders and trilanders would have a problem with this requirement.
Somewhere this debate turned into a debate on singlecrew rather than multicrew operations.
Now, I have flown both types of operation, GA and Airline and Corporate. While I cannot deem single crew operations as unsafe, I truly believe that multi crew is safer.
My main point of contention is that Life's a beech seems to be the defender of single crew, (even potentially hazardous situations where the pilot blacks-out?!), because the second crew member has nothing to do?
He admits that he has never flown multicrew ops, but has learnt to be confident and cautious on his own. Great. I just feel that as others have pointed out he hasn't quite got the concept of multi crew...
Quote
Of course they would be doing nothing. In light twins there is nothing for them to do! Most of the flight there is little for me to do!
I have flown with a pilot's assistant and given them the radio and perhaps the plog, even the navigation (I have also been the "pilot's assistant"). However this actually makes things less efficient. I have to make decisions and communicate with them, so replies to radio calls are delayed, leading to problems of being stepped on by ATC's repeat, and I can get out of the loop with flight progress unless I look at the plog too so it is passed back and forth. I also have to monitor the navigation to keep situational awareness, so might as well do it myself. People who don't have the capacity to do it all themselves without difficulty just don't pass a line check in this business (yes in initial line training the tasks are divided for the first few sectors, unless the new pilot is especially good, while he learns how to manage the cockpit. However ten sectors usually leaves the pilot easily able to cope with everything).
The only exception would be on final approach in very poor weather, when another pair of eyes would be very useful, but the instrument approach minima are different single-crew. However we simply accept that we fly to the more restrictive minima, and it is very rarely an issue.
End Quote.
Honestly, The above quote worries me. CRM issues galore! I love the " I might as well do it myself bit" - priceless!
Fill your boots. Have a great life, and enjoy the flying. Each to their own, but I don't think Life's a beech is in a position to comment on Multi Crew Ops. (Even though he has attended and listened to all the Human factors / CRM lectures! - and picked up on Risk shift - which is taught so that crews can be aware of it, enhancing safety, surely not a reason to dismiss the whole concept of multi crew!)
Back to the point? Was it single crew with autopilot? or no single crew at all?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of these aircraft flown single-crew, public transport (with the requirement for a servicable autopilot), actually have a servicable one?
...and what exactly is the definition of servicable? Does it have to work in all modes?
...and what exactly is the definition of servicable? Does it have to work in all modes?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been involved in single-pilot IFR certification, but quite some time ago....
Can anybody quote the links to the current UK CAA requirements, so I can form my own judgment?
Can anybody quote the links to the current UK CAA requirements, so I can form my own judgment?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Silverspoon. You can't really generalise in that way. Not ALL low time pilots would prove useless when called upon. As an ex-instructor you'd have seen for yourself that there are those who instantly take to flying and those who don't. This trend continues into the commercial world where I've flown with a reasonable number of new-hires on their line training. As in most walks of life there are always going to be the good, bad and (looking around these forums) the mad and downright dangerous. Until somebody invents a way of producing instant experts this will always be the case.
South Coast sums it up perfectly. LAB, you make a far better case for single pilot operation than I think you realise. Your posts display worrying trends which make it deeply ironic that you should tell him/her (SC) to go back to the CRM books.
Plinkton is probably right. The end of single crew ops may be coming and that's no bad thing.
Back to the beach for me, carry on.
South Coast sums it up perfectly. LAB, you make a far better case for single pilot operation than I think you realise. Your posts display worrying trends which make it deeply ironic that you should tell him/her (SC) to go back to the CRM books.
Plinkton is probably right. The end of single crew ops may be coming and that's no bad thing.
Back to the beach for me, carry on.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This discussion is getting pointless, as smallfry suggests. Sorry I have made personal comments, I should not have despite having insults thrown at me. You cannot judge my CRM from your computer keyboard. Flintstone, you of all people as an instructor in such matters should know this.
The actual comprehension shown by those arguing against single-crew operations is so poor that it is pointless me posting anything, or it will be misrepresented.
smallfry
Actually the best argument I could give for a second crewman is not too much for one to do, it is boredom. You have just thrown some random insults around, not mad a case for having anything for a second crewmember to do. Why, for example, should I not take care of the navigation myself? You don't even try to explain.
Of course if we were multi-crew as standard there would be SOPs which would make the integration of tasks easier. However I still don't think that would be more efficient (which was the argument). It is just not needed in such simple aircraft, for the sort of pilots we in single-crew operations check to line.
The actual comprehension shown by those arguing against single-crew operations is so poor that it is pointless me posting anything, or it will be misrepresented.
smallfry
Actually the best argument I could give for a second crewman is not too much for one to do, it is boredom. You have just thrown some random insults around, not mad a case for having anything for a second crewmember to do. Why, for example, should I not take care of the navigation myself? You don't even try to explain.
Of course if we were multi-crew as standard there would be SOPs which would make the integration of tasks easier. However I still don't think that would be more efficient (which was the argument). It is just not needed in such simple aircraft, for the sort of pilots we in single-crew operations check to line.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are what our American cousins would call some 'anger issues' showing though here which are somewhat worrying given the line of work involved and the sound of back pedalling isn't helping much.
I re-read the entire thread (God help me) in the search for these insults. The nearest I came were the words 'silly' (to which you admitted) and 'petulance' which hardly qualifies.
Your posts however have been somewhat more aggressive. Nothing earth shattering but I think you accused me of being dishonest back there somewhere. Oh, and called me an idiot a couple of times. The one that really hurt though was my "poor english". I'm wounded, truly wounded.
But you do owe me a new ironymeter because mine bent the needle when you wrote (to SC) "We don't have to accept your word for everything.......dictatorial....". Bloody funny if it weren't such an alarming indicator along with "Having a pilot's assistant is less efficient........I have to make decisions and communicate with them". As someone else wrote, I don't think you've quite grasped this new fangled multi-crew concept.
In all seriousness LAB, you do portray some worrying traits.
Originally Posted by LAB
having insults thrown at me
Your posts however have been somewhat more aggressive. Nothing earth shattering but I think you accused me of being dishonest back there somewhere. Oh, and called me an idiot a couple of times. The one that really hurt though was my "poor english". I'm wounded, truly wounded.
But you do owe me a new ironymeter because mine bent the needle when you wrote (to SC) "We don't have to accept your word for everything.......dictatorial....". Bloody funny if it weren't such an alarming indicator along with "Having a pilot's assistant is less efficient........I have to make decisions and communicate with them". As someone else wrote, I don't think you've quite grasped this new fangled multi-crew concept.
In all seriousness LAB, you do portray some worrying traits.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life's a Beech:
Well done, the first step towards resolving any personal problems is admitting to them.
Sorry I have made personal comments, I should not have despite having insults thrown at me.