The End Of Single Crew Commercial Flights ?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAB reminds me of someone else who used to post on here...cant remember his name, but your style reminds me of someone who previously posted on pprune.
LAB, did you used to post under a different name?
LAB, did you used to post under a different name?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK FIR
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would an additional pilot have saved 5 lives in this case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1111467.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1111467.stm
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, seems that since I have been away the thread has gone even further from relevance! I cannot add anything else, apart from replying to AWZK, as this seems no-one else has anything to add. However I can correct some of the misrepresentation.
The CAA are not going to stop single-crew operations. They have always been considered safe, if properly regulated. If the CAA moved against them they would immediately be hit by several huge lawsuits, and they would back down. The discussion is therefore pointless.
G-AWZK
The most interesting thing about that is that you have to go back 6 years to find one accident, and it is an incident that today would almost certainly have been flown with a pilot's assistant!
Flintstone - how can claiming what I say is so far off you cannot be sincere be anything but a calculated insult? OK, it seems it was, as all your posts since, calculated to hide the fact that you hadn't understood the thread, and started arguing at cross purposes (about single crew being less safe than multi-crew, rather than single crew being safe for public transport which was the issue), but still a calculated insult.
Plinkton
I don't think responding to personal comments with further personal comments constitutes a "personal problem"! It is a pointless argument, that is all. However that seems to fit in with the last few pages of this thread.
The CAA are not going to stop single-crew operations. They have always been considered safe, if properly regulated. If the CAA moved against them they would immediately be hit by several huge lawsuits, and they would back down. The discussion is therefore pointless.
G-AWZK
The most interesting thing about that is that you have to go back 6 years to find one accident, and it is an incident that today would almost certainly have been flown with a pilot's assistant!
Flintstone - how can claiming what I say is so far off you cannot be sincere be anything but a calculated insult? OK, it seems it was, as all your posts since, calculated to hide the fact that you hadn't understood the thread, and started arguing at cross purposes (about single crew being less safe than multi-crew, rather than single crew being safe for public transport which was the issue), but still a calculated insult.
Plinkton
I don't think responding to personal comments with further personal comments constitutes a "personal problem"! It is a pointless argument, that is all. However that seems to fit in with the last few pages of this thread.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most interesting thing about that is that you have to go back 6 years to find one accident, and it is an incident that today would almost certainly have been flown with a pilot's assistant!
I think he had a heart attack and went into the Mersey, if thiss is the one you are reffering to would he have needed a pilots assistant? I thought it was a Navajo
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was the one G-AWZK linked to.
Most organisations that hire aircraft to carry their personnel, especially medical personnel and those in the oil industry, demand two crew. Some private individuals do too, but they are responsible for their own decisions (of course companies are responsible for the safety of their people if they have chartered an aircraft). With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot.
Most organisations that hire aircraft to carry their personnel, especially medical personnel and those in the oil industry, demand two crew. Some private individuals do too, but they are responsible for their own decisions (of course companies are responsible for the safety of their people if they have chartered an aircraft). With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LAB, what on Earth are you on about? Calculated insult? A shame that your fragile ego translates anything contrary to your own hide bound, cast in stone, immutable opinions thusly but I'd say that's something that you rather than I need address.
The irony of such an acccusation, from you of all people, is overwhelming. I am amazed at the outright rudeness, arrogance and pomposity of some of your comments to people on this site. A brief trawl through your posting history is enough to make a civilised person cringe so accusing someone else of being insulting is nothing short of an own goal. If you wish to claim otherwise I'd be happy to cut and paste a few quotes.
The irony of such an acccusation, from you of all people, is overwhelming. I am amazed at the outright rudeness, arrogance and pomposity of some of your comments to people on this site. A brief trawl through your posting history is enough to make a civilised person cringe so accusing someone else of being insulting is nothing short of an own goal. If you wish to claim otherwise I'd be happy to cut and paste a few quotes.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(1) Anyone know whether these rumours are true ?
(2) Is there any good evidence that having 2 pilots is actually safer than one assuming good training and strict adherence to SOP's ?"
That was the original question... (numbers by me)
LAB says (answering (1):"The CAA are not going to stop single-crew operations. They have always been considered safe, if properly regulated. If the CAA moved against them they would immediately be hit by several huge lawsuits, and they would back down. The discussion is therefore pointless."
You should have answered so on day one! Especially the bit:"The discussion is therefore pointless" would have saved a lot of effort...
Lets face it,(answering 2) flying Single pilot in IMC is in NO way as safe as flying 2 man. Just check the link out.
PROVIDED: we are talking about well trained crew in both cases.
And, lets face it: not to fly Single crew would mean the end of a lot of entreprises, mainly the ones that just could survive after introduction of JAROPS, which has just increased the workload of postholders and doubled or trippled the paperflow within commercial aviation departments.
I wouldn´t be to surprised if EASA would do their "best" to forbid SPOps, on grounds and motivation not really serving the public, but their purposes, mainly being important!
I think any sensible passenger and freightclient can decide for themselves, when been given proper information: "this flight is done with a single pilot." Mandatory on the contracts, tickets and whatnot would do the trick. IMO.
BTW, I´ve got roughly 1000 hrs SP hrs and 6400 dual crew under my belt (albeit SP only on Beech 200´s - with good AP´s,EFIS / FMS, WX RDR etc.)
(2) Is there any good evidence that having 2 pilots is actually safer than one assuming good training and strict adherence to SOP's ?"
That was the original question... (numbers by me)
LAB says (answering (1):"The CAA are not going to stop single-crew operations. They have always been considered safe, if properly regulated. If the CAA moved against them they would immediately be hit by several huge lawsuits, and they would back down. The discussion is therefore pointless."
You should have answered so on day one! Especially the bit:"The discussion is therefore pointless" would have saved a lot of effort...
Lets face it,(answering 2) flying Single pilot in IMC is in NO way as safe as flying 2 man. Just check the link out.
PROVIDED: we are talking about well trained crew in both cases.
And, lets face it: not to fly Single crew would mean the end of a lot of entreprises, mainly the ones that just could survive after introduction of JAROPS, which has just increased the workload of postholders and doubled or trippled the paperflow within commercial aviation departments.
I wouldn´t be to surprised if EASA would do their "best" to forbid SPOps, on grounds and motivation not really serving the public, but their purposes, mainly being important!
I think any sensible passenger and freightclient can decide for themselves, when been given proper information: "this flight is done with a single pilot." Mandatory on the contracts, tickets and whatnot would do the trick. IMO.
BTW, I´ve got roughly 1000 hrs SP hrs and 6400 dual crew under my belt (albeit SP only on Beech 200´s - with good AP´s,EFIS / FMS, WX RDR etc.)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: somewhere warm
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God two crew would be a dream esp with these BKN002 AND 2000M VIS evening, im not saying dont have Single pilot skills but a 2nd pair of eyes would sure help esp when told if im told to keep best speed to 4 miles. But I cant see him being there since we couldnt carry our contract frt weight. 90kg in my SP Twin turbine isnt really a big deal but 90kg is a piston twin now might as well ground the flight.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK FIR
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life's a beech (or is it Send Clowns again?)
If you are ooking for something more recent, I suggest you have read through this accident report:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...06__g_bomg.cfm
Given that the investigation identified the following causal factors:
1. The pilot allowed the aircraft to descend below the minimum altitude for the aircraft’s position on the approach procedure, and this descent probably continued unchecked until the aircraft flew into the sea.
2. A combination of fatigue, workload and lack of recent flying practise probably contributed to the pilot’s reduced performance.
3. The pilot may have been subject to an undetermined influence such as disorientation, distraction or a subtle incapacitation, which affected his ability to safely control the aircraft’s flightpath.
I feel that an additional pilot in this case would have saved the AAIB a job.
In fact section 3 of the report contains the following sentence:
If you are ooking for something more recent, I suggest you have read through this accident report:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...06__g_bomg.cfm
Given that the investigation identified the following causal factors:
1. The pilot allowed the aircraft to descend below the minimum altitude for the aircraft’s position on the approach procedure, and this descent probably continued unchecked until the aircraft flew into the sea.
2. A combination of fatigue, workload and lack of recent flying practise probably contributed to the pilot’s reduced performance.
3. The pilot may have been subject to an undetermined influence such as disorientation, distraction or a subtle incapacitation, which affected his ability to safely control the aircraft’s flightpath.
I feel that an additional pilot in this case would have saved the AAIB a job.
In fact section 3 of the report contains the following sentence:
21. The presence of a second pilot may have prevented the accident.
Last edited by G-AWZK; 14th Jan 2008 at 19:34.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the random, bizarre connection with another person who hasn't posted in years?
It might be that another pilot would have prevented the accident. However I could point you to many accident reports for multi-crew aircraft. We are not talking about the known fact that there are accidents, or that multi-crew operations are marginally safer. As already pointed out, the subject is whether single-crew operations are unsafe or due to be banned. Your post does not argue to either case.
It might be that another pilot would have prevented the accident. However I could point you to many accident reports for multi-crew aircraft. We are not talking about the known fact that there are accidents, or that multi-crew operations are marginally safer. As already pointed out, the subject is whether single-crew operations are unsafe or due to be banned. Your post does not argue to either case.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone
I don't insult people who have not either insulted me or made some offensive, ignorant remark. You are still way off topic, as you have always been. The thread seems to have spiralled into pointless contention since you posted, despite the fact that you haven't said anything that supports the idea that single-crew PT is unsafe or, more pertinently to the thread, is likely to be banned.
It is not unsafe. It is not going to be banned. The marginal additional safety of second crew is irrelevant.
I don't insult people who have not either insulted me or made some offensive, ignorant remark. You are still way off topic, as you have always been. The thread seems to have spiralled into pointless contention since you posted, despite the fact that you haven't said anything that supports the idea that single-crew PT is unsafe or, more pertinently to the thread, is likely to be banned.
It is not unsafe. It is not going to be banned. The marginal additional safety of second crew is irrelevant.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life's a Beech:
Some years ago (in 1990) I sat in the desert, talking with a bunch of colleagues about our situation. Suddenly one piped up:
"...there won't be a war, we won't be bombing them, this will all blow over and everybody will be going home soon."
This came from an intelligent, well-educated guy. He was just trying to convince himself. Some weeks later all hell broke loose in the Middle East and as we know, flared up again in 2003.
Personally, I think the ball is already rolling and single-crew operations will be reduced within 5 years at most. My prediction is that they will be limited to flying instruction and day VFR flights, maybe it will take longer but it's on its way out.
Life's a Beech:
I cannot agree with that, an aircraft could cause an accident due to runway incursion, or a mid-air collision, or crash on a well-populated area.
It is not unsafe. It is not going to be banned. The marginal additional safety of second crew is irrelevant.
"...there won't be a war, we won't be bombing them, this will all blow over and everybody will be going home soon."
This came from an intelligent, well-educated guy. He was just trying to convince himself. Some weeks later all hell broke loose in the Middle East and as we know, flared up again in 2003.
Personally, I think the ball is already rolling and single-crew operations will be reduced within 5 years at most. My prediction is that they will be limited to flying instruction and day VFR flights, maybe it will take longer but it's on its way out.
Life's a Beech:
With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plinkton
I said "significant risk". The wording was quite deliberate.
It won't be banned. There is no hint in the industry, from the CAA, from JAA or in EU-OPS, the latest regulations that are not even widely available yet which are to be implemented later this year (I know someone with an advance copy). That strongly suggests there are no plans to ban single-drew public transport. In addition the owners of every GA company involved would sue the CAA or EASA for millions, and hold up any such ruling in the courts for years.
Personally you can predict what you like. Single-crew operations have already reduced, due to the market not regulation, probably to the smallest they will be for a while. I suspect a steady state or minor growth for this year.
This subject is pointless. Bye!
I said "significant risk". The wording was quite deliberate.
It won't be banned. There is no hint in the industry, from the CAA, from JAA or in EU-OPS, the latest regulations that are not even widely available yet which are to be implemented later this year (I know someone with an advance copy). That strongly suggests there are no plans to ban single-drew public transport. In addition the owners of every GA company involved would sue the CAA or EASA for millions, and hold up any such ruling in the courts for years.
Personally you can predict what you like. Single-crew operations have already reduced, due to the market not regulation, probably to the smallest they will be for a while. I suspect a steady state or minor growth for this year.
This subject is pointless. Bye!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life's a Beech:
Could you expand a little on what you mean by this. Do you mean significant risk of an accident compared to insignificant risk of accident?
or
Risk of an accident the same but in the case of single-crew freight flights, the outcome will be significant compared to the outcome where passengers are carried rather than freight.
Because, the way I read what you said:
...It sounds like you are discounting any other person or object being involved, this is something no-one can predict. If, as you say "With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot", you really should define that risk.
I said "significant risk". The wording was quite deliberate.
or
Risk of an accident the same but in the case of single-crew freight flights, the outcome will be significant compared to the outcome where passengers are carried rather than freight.
Because, the way I read what you said:
With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read the links and the reports of these accidents, the issue seems to be thoroughness of the class 1 medical, not whether it is single crew or not.
If a pilot has a heart condition, such as the Liverpool accident, surely he shouldn't be flying at all ? The CAA medical didn't pick up on this - why not? The whole idea of pilots having medical's is to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps the CAA should make the medical more thorough.
If all single crew ops were banned, it would eliminate a whole level of aviation. It just isn't feasable to operate light twins 2 crew.
If a pilot has a heart condition, such as the Liverpool accident, surely he shouldn't be flying at all ? The CAA medical didn't pick up on this - why not? The whole idea of pilots having medical's is to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps the CAA should make the medical more thorough.
If all single crew ops were banned, it would eliminate a whole level of aviation. It just isn't feasable to operate light twins 2 crew.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plinkton
When I said "With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot" I mean that on a freight flight the risk of an accident involving any person other than the crew is vanishingly small. I am not trying to predict anything. I am not discounting anything or anyone. The risk varies, depending on far more factors than we can possibly discuss here, so defining it is far beyond the scope of this medium.
When I said "With freight the only person at significant risk is the pilot" I mean that on a freight flight the risk of an accident involving any person other than the crew is vanishingly small. I am not trying to predict anything. I am not discounting anything or anyone. The risk varies, depending on far more factors than we can possibly discuss here, so defining it is far beyond the scope of this medium.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the debate here is drying up slightly. However...
flynowpaylater:
This is a good point, the pilot must have been having medicals to CAA standards including ECG's, etc. How the hell did this accident happen?
flynowpaylater:
Having read the links and the reports of these accidents, the issue seems to be thoroughness of the class 1 medical, not whether it is single crew or not.
If a pilot has a heart condition, such as the Liverpool accident, surely he shouldn't be flying at all ? The CAA medical didn't pick up on this - why not? The whole idea of pilots having medical's is to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps the CAA should make the medical more thorough.
If all single crew ops were banned, it would eliminate a whole level of aviation. It just isn't feasable to operate light twins 2 crew.
If a pilot has a heart condition, such as the Liverpool accident, surely he shouldn't be flying at all ? The CAA medical didn't pick up on this - why not? The whole idea of pilots having medical's is to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps the CAA should make the medical more thorough.
If all single crew ops were banned, it would eliminate a whole level of aviation. It just isn't feasable to operate light twins 2 crew.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO only those pilots that have flown both single crew and multi crew are best placed to debate this issue. Looking at many of the comments here it would appear that single crew pilots are 'defending their corner' (quite understandable) but as they do not have multi crew experience I fail to see how they can really comment without bias.
As I have said previously, I have flown both SPA and MPA operations and feel suitably qualified to offer a wider point of view.
Multi crew operations are safer for all concerned. It is not simply a matter of training or SOP's but back to my previous statement that two heads are better than one.
I readily accept that as a multi crew pilot I am perhaps in a safer position to accept the notion of a stop to single crew flying but that's just the way it is.......sorry.
I still maintain that all IFR public transport flights should be multi crew (regardless of the cost).
UTF
As I have said previously, I have flown both SPA and MPA operations and feel suitably qualified to offer a wider point of view.
Multi crew operations are safer for all concerned. It is not simply a matter of training or SOP's but back to my previous statement that two heads are better than one.
I readily accept that as a multi crew pilot I am perhaps in a safer position to accept the notion of a stop to single crew flying but that's just the way it is.......sorry.
I still maintain that all IFR public transport flights should be multi crew (regardless of the cost).
UTF