The End Of Single Crew Commercial Flights ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?"
Happens every day ! Unless a medical would involve a heart surgery (to REALLY `look it up`).
Your heart can give the best possible readings on the meter and as you walk out, stop working. Fact of life, as my Surgeon said, all the checks you can fool you. Thats why medicine isnīt as easy as piloting, IMO. A medical just says that you where okay within limits on the very day of making the tests. And thats good enough, methinks.
But apart from these things - seldom enough - a lot of pilots (especially with small operators) do fly when they actually shouldnīt. But they feel a need to, since often there is no one to replace them or they are within probation period or whatever other reason. Been there, done that. Thats the time you really like to have a second pilot with you (please note: Iīm not saying I dislike a second chap else!). Having a cold or neck pain from a bad hotel pillow doesnīt really increase my performance...
Happens every day ! Unless a medical would involve a heart surgery (to REALLY `look it up`).
Your heart can give the best possible readings on the meter and as you walk out, stop working. Fact of life, as my Surgeon said, all the checks you can fool you. Thats why medicine isnīt as easy as piloting, IMO. A medical just says that you where okay within limits on the very day of making the tests. And thats good enough, methinks.
But apart from these things - seldom enough - a lot of pilots (especially with small operators) do fly when they actually shouldnīt. But they feel a need to, since often there is no one to replace them or they are within probation period or whatever other reason. Been there, done that. Thats the time you really like to have a second pilot with you (please note: Iīm not saying I dislike a second chap else!). Having a cold or neck pain from a bad hotel pillow doesnīt really increase my performance...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
usedtofly
Why? We are not discussing multi-crew flying. We are debating single-crew flying, so why is it necessary to have flown multi-crew to have a reasoned argument? I suspect you have made the same assumption as others, that there is any debate here about whether multi-crew is safer than single, which if there is I have not noticed!
Where are your statistics to show multi-crew is far safer? What is your definition of "far" safer, in statistical terms? I think it would be very difficult to quantify, but you need to try!
I would suggest that saying multi-crew is far safer is incorrect. Single-crew operations are statistically very safe, with very few accidents in legal public-transport operations, so even if there were no accidents in multi-crew aircraft I wouldn't use the term far safer. As there are multi-crew accidents, I suggest it is only marginally safer.
His dudeness
For that reason I would like to change some of the common practices in this end of the industry. In fact we have changed some. For example some of our competitors don't pay their pilots a salary, or only a small retainer, and pilots only get paid for flying. That increases the pressure to fly and not call in sick! There have also been some overbearing characters who try to force pilots to fly when they don't want to.
Why? We are not discussing multi-crew flying. We are debating single-crew flying, so why is it necessary to have flown multi-crew to have a reasoned argument? I suspect you have made the same assumption as others, that there is any debate here about whether multi-crew is safer than single, which if there is I have not noticed!
Where are your statistics to show multi-crew is far safer? What is your definition of "far" safer, in statistical terms? I think it would be very difficult to quantify, but you need to try!
I would suggest that saying multi-crew is far safer is incorrect. Single-crew operations are statistically very safe, with very few accidents in legal public-transport operations, so even if there were no accidents in multi-crew aircraft I wouldn't use the term far safer. As there are multi-crew accidents, I suggest it is only marginally safer.
His dudeness
For that reason I would like to change some of the common practices in this end of the industry. In fact we have changed some. For example some of our competitors don't pay their pilots a salary, or only a small retainer, and pilots only get paid for flying. That increases the pressure to fly and not call in sick! There have also been some overbearing characters who try to force pilots to fly when they don't want to.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I could just jump in here.
I've read this thread with interest as I have done and still do both, Single crew and Multi crew. I don't think it's about statistics, but about the potential for an accident. I agree that most single pilot Ops are on a pay as you fly basis and the pressure is on to fly regardless otherwise no dosh.
Their are Pros and Cons for both, but I am convinced that Multi crew is safer then single crew and here's why in my opinion.
When I fly single crew I have a workload and I manage it accordingly. I do (A) at a certain point and I do (B) at a certain point. More than once I have been approaching a busy airport, only to be given a different STAR than I was expecting, instructed to take up the hold etc and as you will know things get rather busy rather fast. sometimes the result is that I forget to do (A) and I forget to do (B)
When I fly multi crew, delegation kicks in and that workload can be shared, hence (A) and (B) don't get forgotten.
Now, I'm not trying to teach anybody on here to suck eggs as I'm sure we all know the above, but I know for a fact that my passengers, even though they don't know the in's and out's feel happier with two pilots. On one busy sector I had to put a pax in the co-pilot seat in a B200. Half way through the flight he asked what would happen if I passed out? What could I say to re-assure him? Don't worry thats not going to happen? or "Well I'm afraid you'll have to take over"
People think that because we have continous medicals we are bullet proof and that is rubbish. As stated previously, an ECG will show perfectly and then you can drop dead from a heart attack, putting your shirt back on.
You can't beat Multi-engine, Multi-crew end of story. Even with a total newbie with a brand new fATPL in the right seat, that you have to keep double checking, just to make sure they are doing it right. At least you are double checking and two heads are always better than one even if one of them hasn't got the relevant experience yet.
Cheers
Bearing 123
I've read this thread with interest as I have done and still do both, Single crew and Multi crew. I don't think it's about statistics, but about the potential for an accident. I agree that most single pilot Ops are on a pay as you fly basis and the pressure is on to fly regardless otherwise no dosh.
Their are Pros and Cons for both, but I am convinced that Multi crew is safer then single crew and here's why in my opinion.
When I fly single crew I have a workload and I manage it accordingly. I do (A) at a certain point and I do (B) at a certain point. More than once I have been approaching a busy airport, only to be given a different STAR than I was expecting, instructed to take up the hold etc and as you will know things get rather busy rather fast. sometimes the result is that I forget to do (A) and I forget to do (B)
When I fly multi crew, delegation kicks in and that workload can be shared, hence (A) and (B) don't get forgotten.
Now, I'm not trying to teach anybody on here to suck eggs as I'm sure we all know the above, but I know for a fact that my passengers, even though they don't know the in's and out's feel happier with two pilots. On one busy sector I had to put a pax in the co-pilot seat in a B200. Half way through the flight he asked what would happen if I passed out? What could I say to re-assure him? Don't worry thats not going to happen? or "Well I'm afraid you'll have to take over"
People think that because we have continous medicals we are bullet proof and that is rubbish. As stated previously, an ECG will show perfectly and then you can drop dead from a heart attack, putting your shirt back on.
You can't beat Multi-engine, Multi-crew end of story. Even with a total newbie with a brand new fATPL in the right seat, that you have to keep double checking, just to make sure they are doing it right. At least you are double checking and two heads are always better than one even if one of them hasn't got the relevant experience yet.
Cheers
Bearing 123
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing 123
But this thread is not about multi-crew operations. It is accepted that they are safer, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. Everything you say is true, but it doesn't make single-crew ops unsafe, it just means that more care must be taken in selecting and training crews, and in the way the aircraft are operated.
For the record if you are comparing multi-crew to single-crew, then it is about statistics and must always be. There is always potential for an accident, however large the crew - AN-26s have crashed due to pilot error, and they have five crew. The comparison must take into account the comparative likelihood of crash, which cannot be judged without some statistical element. However that is not the subject of the thread! Single-crew ops cannot just be changed to multi-crew ops, so they will only be banned if they are unsafe, not simply because single-crew ops are safer.
But this thread is not about multi-crew operations. It is accepted that they are safer, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. Everything you say is true, but it doesn't make single-crew ops unsafe, it just means that more care must be taken in selecting and training crews, and in the way the aircraft are operated.
For the record if you are comparing multi-crew to single-crew, then it is about statistics and must always be. There is always potential for an accident, however large the crew - AN-26s have crashed due to pilot error, and they have five crew. The comparison must take into account the comparative likelihood of crash, which cannot be judged without some statistical element. However that is not the subject of the thread! Single-crew ops cannot just be changed to multi-crew ops, so they will only be banned if they are unsafe, not simply because single-crew ops are safer.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life's a Beech,
All fair points and well made.
I agree that single crew ops is the poor relation of flying. It is well documented that the first job most newbies get is the hardest to do. More training and better wages would improve things considerably as taking a guy out of flying instructing etc and putting him (or her) into night all weather single pilot IFR ops almost with no extra training apart from an OPC is bordering on insane. Yes we've all had to do it, but at the first chance of a decent job with a higher life expectancy we bolted. Better training and better wages would at least keep the experienced people in the jobs for longer and also less pressure to fly regardless would also help.
All fair points and well made.
I agree that single crew ops is the poor relation of flying. It is well documented that the first job most newbies get is the hardest to do. More training and better wages would improve things considerably as taking a guy out of flying instructing etc and putting him (or her) into night all weather single pilot IFR ops almost with no extra training apart from an OPC is bordering on insane. Yes we've all had to do it, but at the first chance of a decent job with a higher life expectancy we bolted. Better training and better wages would at least keep the experienced people in the jobs for longer and also less pressure to fly regardless would also help.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing - totally agree.
That is why we spend a lot of time recruiting the "right" pilots, and then spend more time, and money training them. They also get a salary, flight pay, night stop allowance, holiday pay and BUPA cover. They are also issued with a company credit card, and company mobile phone.
Once on line, we don't send them on the more demanding charters until they have accrued some on-line experience. Handling, flight planning, and a thorough crew brief are all sorted by the ops staff. All flights are conducted IFR, unless it is a positioning leg on a short sector, and the pilot elects to do so.
why do we do this ? - Basically, because it makes commercial sense to do so.
A well trained, motivated staff member, whether a pilot or other, will deliver a much better service to the customer.......who in turn is more likely to use your company again...and again...and again. This in turn brings your unit cost down, and allows the company to expand.
Single crew has a bad name, mainly because it is entry level into commercial aviation, and therefore a lot more idiots running companies at that level. Just for the record, Titan Airways, Flightline, LEA, and a whole host of biz jet operators started life as single crew operators. Run properly, and it safe and rewarding.
That is why we spend a lot of time recruiting the "right" pilots, and then spend more time, and money training them. They also get a salary, flight pay, night stop allowance, holiday pay and BUPA cover. They are also issued with a company credit card, and company mobile phone.
Once on line, we don't send them on the more demanding charters until they have accrued some on-line experience. Handling, flight planning, and a thorough crew brief are all sorted by the ops staff. All flights are conducted IFR, unless it is a positioning leg on a short sector, and the pilot elects to do so.
why do we do this ? - Basically, because it makes commercial sense to do so.
A well trained, motivated staff member, whether a pilot or other, will deliver a much better service to the customer.......who in turn is more likely to use your company again...and again...and again. This in turn brings your unit cost down, and allows the company to expand.
Single crew has a bad name, mainly because it is entry level into commercial aviation, and therefore a lot more idiots running companies at that level. Just for the record, Titan Airways, Flightline, LEA, and a whole host of biz jet operators started life as single crew operators. Run properly, and it safe and rewarding.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that to state that single crew ops are safe or unsafe is over simplifying things...
Where do you draw the line between safe and unsafe?? Ask many different people that question and you will get as many different answers as the answer will be based on how they percieve the level of risk.
A PPL who happily bumbles accross the channel in the middle of winter in a light piston single would not do so unless he percieved it as safe.
A pilot who flies single pilot public transport in a piston aircraft would not do so unless he percieved it as safe, however he may not percieve what the PPL is doing as safe even if he has done this before himself.
A pilot who flies multi crew public transport in a jet aircraft would not do so unless he percieved it as being safe, however he may not percieve what the guy flying single crew is doing to be safe, even if he has done this before himself.
I don't think anybody would dispute that the level of risk decreases accross those three scenarios, it just depends what level of risk is acceptable to the individual (or the CAA) which is where they will draw the line Safe/Unsafe.
At one point Airlines percieved that piston twins with one pilot were a safe form of transport for possitioning their crews, now following the crash with the airtours crew in scotland most have decided that it is unsafe, the level of risk hasn't changed, just the airlines/crews perception of it.
I have flown all three scenarios that I listed above and my perception of what is Safe/Unsafe has certainly changed...
Where do you draw the line between safe and unsafe?? Ask many different people that question and you will get as many different answers as the answer will be based on how they percieve the level of risk.
A PPL who happily bumbles accross the channel in the middle of winter in a light piston single would not do so unless he percieved it as safe.
A pilot who flies single pilot public transport in a piston aircraft would not do so unless he percieved it as safe, however he may not percieve what the PPL is doing as safe even if he has done this before himself.
A pilot who flies multi crew public transport in a jet aircraft would not do so unless he percieved it as being safe, however he may not percieve what the guy flying single crew is doing to be safe, even if he has done this before himself.
I don't think anybody would dispute that the level of risk decreases accross those three scenarios, it just depends what level of risk is acceptable to the individual (or the CAA) which is where they will draw the line Safe/Unsafe.
At one point Airlines percieved that piston twins with one pilot were a safe form of transport for possitioning their crews, now following the crash with the airtours crew in scotland most have decided that it is unsafe, the level of risk hasn't changed, just the airlines/crews perception of it.
I have flown all three scenarios that I listed above and my perception of what is Safe/Unsafe has certainly changed...
Guest
Posts: n/a
LAB
Y'know, I contemplated quoting a selection of your 'off' comments here to prove my point but was spoiled for choice. Try clicking on 'Find more posts' in your profile sometime and check the tone of some of the things you write. If they don't make you uncomfortable there's something wrong.
I'm relieved (for your sake) that you're not the reincarnation of Send Clowns because then I would have to really dislike you. Met the cove at a PPRuNe bash once. He spent at least half an hour mithering on about how crap his life as a flying instructor was, how nobody would give him a "decent" job (his words) and how nobody seemed to like him. I bought him a drink and the lousy little toad shuffled off without even having the decency to thank me.
Good job he's someone else, eh?
Y'know, I contemplated quoting a selection of your 'off' comments here to prove my point but was spoiled for choice. Try clicking on 'Find more posts' in your profile sometime and check the tone of some of the things you write. If they don't make you uncomfortable there's something wrong.
I'm relieved (for your sake) that you're not the reincarnation of Send Clowns because then I would have to really dislike you. Met the cove at a PPRuNe bash once. He spent at least half an hour mithering on about how crap his life as a flying instructor was, how nobody would give him a "decent" job (his words) and how nobody seemed to like him. I bought him a drink and the lousy little toad shuffled off without even having the decency to thank me.
Good job he's someone else, eh?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incident in Scotland in the C404 was a two crew operation, as specified by Airtours in their contract with the company, although the co-pilot was classified as a pilot's assistant.
RIP JE.
RIP JE.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVR, the unfortunate accident with the Airtours crew was, as I understand, as a result of an engine failure, and the wrong engine being identified and shut down. This has nothing to do with single crew, as the same basic error at Kegworth occurred in a 737-400.
By your rationale, a 747 classic, is safer than a 747-400 because you have more crew members in the cockpit. The PPL is considered less safe, mainly because the aircraft only has 1 engine. This is not a debate about aircraft types, but the number of flight deck crew.
Light piston twins are simple aircraft, and therefore the pilot doesn't have the extra workload that a jet pilot has in managing the various systems....hence the requirement of 2 crew. Notwithstanding the fact that they go a lot faster, and are a lot heavier.
Lets compare apples with apples.
By your rationale, a 747 classic, is safer than a 747-400 because you have more crew members in the cockpit. The PPL is considered less safe, mainly because the aircraft only has 1 engine. This is not a debate about aircraft types, but the number of flight deck crew.
Light piston twins are simple aircraft, and therefore the pilot doesn't have the extra workload that a jet pilot has in managing the various systems....hence the requirement of 2 crew. Notwithstanding the fact that they go a lot faster, and are a lot heavier.
Lets compare apples with apples.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing 123.......................I fully agree, well said.
LAB...............me thinks you doth protesteth too much!
I'll turn this on it's head.................give me a GOOD reason why single pilot ops is a good thing (excluding price)
UTF
LAB...............me thinks you doth protesteth too much!
I'll turn this on it's head.................give me a GOOD reason why single pilot ops is a good thing (excluding price)
UTF
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UTF,
Simple. It allows me to maintain full SA of the outside world, rather than have to divert part of it to a whingeing bored **** in the other seat.
I'll turn this on it's head.................give me a GOOD reason why single pilot ops is a good thing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by UTF
Whoops, forgot to say comedians and control freaks need not reply
Guest
Posts: n/a
It allows me to maintain full SA of the outside world, rather than have to divert part of it to a whingeing bored **** in the other seat.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
usedtofly
I am not sure it is possible to explain things any more simply. I will try it a different way instead, to see if you understand.
What is the reason that some people think a whole sector of the industry is going to be closed? I have given very solid evidence that it is not imminently to be closed, and good reasons why it would be difficult to close it, yet those that think it will be have given nothing but unattributed speculation!
What is the reason that some people think that sector of the industry should be closed? The people working in an existing, successful industry don't have to justify why it should exist. Those that suggest it should be closed have to justify why. You can't simply resort to saying multi-crew is safer. That is a reason for having multi-crew operations, not a reason for having no single-crew operations.
Your logic, along with most others here so far, is flawed, it is inverted. I am not advocating a new way of operating that I have to justify. You are advocating closing a whole sector of the industry, and you have to justify that. What is your justification for demanding that cost is taken out of the equation?
I am not sure it is possible to explain things any more simply. I will try it a different way instead, to see if you understand.
What is the reason that some people think a whole sector of the industry is going to be closed? I have given very solid evidence that it is not imminently to be closed, and good reasons why it would be difficult to close it, yet those that think it will be have given nothing but unattributed speculation!
What is the reason that some people think that sector of the industry should be closed? The people working in an existing, successful industry don't have to justify why it should exist. Those that suggest it should be closed have to justify why. You can't simply resort to saying multi-crew is safer. That is a reason for having multi-crew operations, not a reason for having no single-crew operations.
Your logic, along with most others here so far, is flawed, it is inverted. I am not advocating a new way of operating that I have to justify. You are advocating closing a whole sector of the industry, and you have to justify that. What is your justification for demanding that cost is taken out of the equation?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Your logic, along with most others here so far, is flawed, it is inverted. I am not advocating a new way of operating that I have to justify. You are advocating closing a whole sector of the industry, and you have to justify that. What is your justification for demanding that cost is taken out of the equation?"
Well, things change. I didnīt like JAROPS 1 when it came and I still donīt like now. However, I had to deal with it. APPARENTLY it makes everything safer. We now have to introduce CAMO for every airplane there is in EASA country, because someone thought (EASA CLOWNS) it is safer. A lot of JAROPS 1 operators by the way urge JAROPS 2... and it will come as a "safety measure". Thats a load of crap, but it is the way the modern world works. Cover up your ar$e is the name of the game.
Now I still think that flying single pilot is less safe than 2 crew. And I still think a passenger or freight agent should have the choice when informed properly about the risks. If not, weīd have to forbid ANY form of SP flying. No PA28, no C152 without 2 man crew.
Well, things change. I didnīt like JAROPS 1 when it came and I still donīt like now. However, I had to deal with it. APPARENTLY it makes everything safer. We now have to introduce CAMO for every airplane there is in EASA country, because someone thought (EASA CLOWNS) it is safer. A lot of JAROPS 1 operators by the way urge JAROPS 2... and it will come as a "safety measure". Thats a load of crap, but it is the way the modern world works. Cover up your ar$e is the name of the game.
Now I still think that flying single pilot is less safe than 2 crew. And I still think a passenger or freight agent should have the choice when informed properly about the risks. If not, weīd have to forbid ANY form of SP flying. No PA28, no C152 without 2 man crew.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flinstone
And if you look at the first post on this thread, the first thing you wrote was to distortion of what I said. You dishonestly implied that I said something incorrect, despite quoting my post (unless we are to believe you are not intelligent enough to understand my meaning, which I don't believe). From that point on this whole thread deteriorated into a ridiculous, combative, pointless set of misunderstandings, until this page where it calmed down when you didn't post. Coincidence?
That is why I really can't be bothered to write anything more to you unless you come up with something rational posted in a civilised manner.
And if you look at the first post on this thread, the first thing you wrote was to distortion of what I said. You dishonestly implied that I said something incorrect, despite quoting my post (unless we are to believe you are not intelligent enough to understand my meaning, which I don't believe). From that point on this whole thread deteriorated into a ridiculous, combative, pointless set of misunderstandings, until this page where it calmed down when you didn't post. Coincidence?
That is why I really can't be bothered to write anything more to you unless you come up with something rational posted in a civilised manner.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I have a question for anyone (but I would be interested in an answer from Life's a Beech):
For the purpose of getting from A to B, by air, you are getting on an aircraft or putting a passenger / freight onto an aircraft.
Discounting weather / cost / weight, etc. (when asked about the flight crew), which would you prefer:
Two pilots or one?
Answer with one word only, either one or two. I'll start:
Two.
For the purpose of getting from A to B, by air, you are getting on an aircraft or putting a passenger / freight onto an aircraft.
Discounting weather / cost / weight, etc. (when asked about the flight crew), which would you prefer:
Two pilots or one?
Answer with one word only, either one or two. I'll start:
Two.