Airbus + Cathay working on Single Pilot during Cruise with A350
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Taipei
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never seen a thread where people are barking up the wrong tree so much. Every second post is ranting about single pilot operations (and lack of redundancy) or even full autonomous flight. That's not what this is about at all.
This is single pilot during cruise. I'll break it down: there's two or more pilots on board. During cruise, the operation of the ship is overseen by one. Take off and landing are still performed by two people.
What will also happen: Take off and landing will be increasingly automated, and with an aircraft like the a350, it's actually improving safety to remove the pilots from the loop and have them perform a purely supervisory role. Less manual flying, full blown erosion of flying skills - it's coming... Children of the magenta line was great teaching for 80's and 90's tech like those first glass cockpits (767, 757, 744, A320/30/40) with insanely unreliable and limited technology.
This is single pilot during cruise. I'll break it down: there's two or more pilots on board. During cruise, the operation of the ship is overseen by one. Take off and landing are still performed by two people.
What will also happen: Take off and landing will be increasingly automated, and with an aircraft like the a350, it's actually improving safety to remove the pilots from the loop and have them perform a purely supervisory role. Less manual flying, full blown erosion of flying skills - it's coming... Children of the magenta line was great teaching for 80's and 90's tech like those first glass cockpits (767, 757, 744, A320/30/40) with insanely unreliable and limited technology.
Ahh, sensible thinking survives in aviation; credible reality from FMS.
Agree, Magenta Line well past its usefulness. Often shown as the complete answer - click click, but failing to explain how the point to disconnect is identified or even if there is sufficient mental capacity because the focus is on failure.
No longer relevant to think ‘man or machine’ (early automation), instead think ‘man and machine’ more often as an inseparable unit: you disconnect the AP, but still depend on FD and FMS.
Agree, Magenta Line well past its usefulness. Often shown as the complete answer - click click, but failing to explain how the point to disconnect is identified or even if there is sufficient mental capacity because the focus is on failure.
No longer relevant to think ‘man or machine’ (early automation), instead think ‘man and machine’ more often as an inseparable unit: you disconnect the AP, but still depend on FD and FMS.
Imho there will always be a human in the flight deck, maybe not a pilot the job may be entirely re designed but it will be a human employed by the airline. Someone needs to be to blame when things go wrong. You will always have accidents, do Boeing and Airbus really want to be the sole party to blame for every accident. 2 max crashes have led to $3bn lawsuit for Boeing so far?
The other issue will be government and airspace restrictions. Regulation is very slow moving. Unionised countries will put a break in the road. Take France up until a decade ago no one over 65 could land there. Now the updated rule is one pilot must be under 60. Or take regulations around medical issues and MOLs on your licence, only one of you being allowed one.
Airlines might push hard for this, but I can’t see governments being that receptive until a lot of proof of concept. And even then you’d have to convince all governments.
The other issue will be government and airspace restrictions. Regulation is very slow moving. Unionised countries will put a break in the road. Take France up until a decade ago no one over 65 could land there. Now the updated rule is one pilot must be under 60. Or take regulations around medical issues and MOLs on your licence, only one of you being allowed one.
Airlines might push hard for this, but I can’t see governments being that receptive until a lot of proof of concept. And even then you’d have to convince all governments.
it's actually improving safety to remove the pilots from the loop and have them perform a purely supervisory role.
Less manual flying, full blown erosion of flying skills - it's coming...
80's and 90's tech like those first glass cockpits (767, 757, 744, A320/30/40) with insanely unreliable and limited technology.
So the single pilot is there in the cruise over the middle of the ocean and the other pilot is in the bunk 45 minutes into deep sleep.......Suddenly an engine fire warning sounds. What does the single pilot do? Shut down the on-fire engine without any cross checking of which engine, which fire push-button, which engine master switch etc. Or wait until the other pilot - who presumably has a CRC and Master warning light above their bunk, is shocked into opening their eyes and stumbles groggily towards the cockpit, waits for the single pilot to check and unlock the door, then sits down and tries to wake up and make sense of what is happening - and only then can the on-fire engine be cross checked and shut down. Surely there would need to be some extra automation to cope with that, (and ditto for a major decompression).
.......like those first glass cockpits (767, 757, 744, A320/30/40) with insanely unreliable and limited technology.
Errr, what ? Can't speak for Boeings, but think I remember just a single duff display unit in about 15 years of flying Airbus FBW glass cockpit, and some older ones could be a bit dim in bright sunlight. Those displays and the whole cockpit are a really good example of an extremely well designed, clear and well functioning suit of equipment.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“.. its already here and the airlines are having to include more manual flying into the regular simulator checks..”
Airbus , 2 Elac 3 Sec 2 Fac , who is flying manually what ?
Airbus , 2 Elac 3 Sec 2 Fac , who is flying manually what ?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Taipei
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker, Lookleft - you both make valid points, but I believe you're not seeing the A350 for what it is.
It's a paradigm shift. Although I agree that the interface appears to only look a little prettier, the hardware and software behind it are very different from previous generations. This aircraft is vastly more capable and is only being operated in a conventional manner for the time being. With minimal upgrades, a suite of further automation can be rolled out, enabling a completely different way of operating the aircraft, indeed safely moving into single pilot ops during cruise.
One of you mentioned a decompression scenario: perfect example of my point... The -1000 does it all for you. (Just Google: A350 AED)
It's a paradigm shift. Although I agree that the interface appears to only look a little prettier, the hardware and software behind it are very different from previous generations. This aircraft is vastly more capable and is only being operated in a conventional manner for the time being. With minimal upgrades, a suite of further automation can be rolled out, enabling a completely different way of operating the aircraft, indeed safely moving into single pilot ops during cruise.
One of you mentioned a decompression scenario: perfect example of my point... The -1000 does it all for you. (Just Google: A350 AED)
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Spain
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone really believe that a suicidal pilot won't be able to intentionally crash the aircraft if they're the pilot flying just because someone else is on the flight deck?
The PF of Atlas 3591 did a bang up job of it with 2 others on the flight deck with him, and he wasn't even trying...
Not dismissing the other arguments against single pilot ops, but keeping a suicidal pilot from crashing just doesn't wash. If they really want to crash, they'll do it. The two people on the flight deck at all times was just a feel-good.
The PF of Atlas 3591 did a bang up job of it with 2 others on the flight deck with him, and he wasn't even trying...
Not dismissing the other arguments against single pilot ops, but keeping a suicidal pilot from crashing just doesn't wash. If they really want to crash, they'll do it. The two people on the flight deck at all times was just a feel-good.
Three historical documents linked below:-
The first (early 1970s) considers the arguments for changing from 3 crew to 2 (BAC/HSA - British Aerospace). Note the views on crew duties, but also that the considerations were very futuristic. The AFD was evaluated by a range of operators, which proved the concept, but still faced bias and commercial issues before certification acceptance.
Similarly structured arguments would be required for 2 pilots decreasing to 1 during the cruise.
The two other documents relate to the design philosophy’s of Airbus and Boeing aircraft (published 1970/80 ?). A simplistic contrast based on these views suggests that the 1 pilot cruise would be easier to argue for the more future-looking aircraft.
Boeing constrained by the past - ‘man or machine’.
Airbus, freedom of the future - ‘man and machine’.
All of the authors were test pilots - engineers, people with visions of the future.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/21i32mrc5o...09410.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1vzpdie1z...2B%2B.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/91aqr7vy9n...2B%2B.pdf?dl=0
The first (early 1970s) considers the arguments for changing from 3 crew to 2 (BAC/HSA - British Aerospace). Note the views on crew duties, but also that the considerations were very futuristic. The AFD was evaluated by a range of operators, which proved the concept, but still faced bias and commercial issues before certification acceptance.
Similarly structured arguments would be required for 2 pilots decreasing to 1 during the cruise.
The two other documents relate to the design philosophy’s of Airbus and Boeing aircraft (published 1970/80 ?). A simplistic contrast based on these views suggests that the 1 pilot cruise would be easier to argue for the more future-looking aircraft.
Boeing constrained by the past - ‘man or machine’.
Airbus, freedom of the future - ‘man and machine’.
All of the authors were test pilots - engineers, people with visions of the future.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/21i32mrc5o...09410.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1vzpdie1z...2B%2B.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/91aqr7vy9n...2B%2B.pdf?dl=0
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Taipei
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer
Could not agree more. The single pilot suicide argument doesn't stick. It's not like solo bus drivers carrying 50+ pax are intentionally driving of cliffs and bridges en masse. Sickening incidents like Germanwings are fortunately statistical outliers, and there is little you can do besides proper psychological screening during recruitment. No amount of people on the flight deck are going to make a difference in the final outcome, in case a sick/depressive mind has been made up. Sadly
Could not agree more. The single pilot suicide argument doesn't stick. It's not like solo bus drivers carrying 50+ pax are intentionally driving of cliffs and bridges en masse. Sickening incidents like Germanwings are fortunately statistical outliers, and there is little you can do besides proper psychological screening during recruitment. No amount of people on the flight deck are going to make a difference in the final outcome, in case a sick/depressive mind has been made up. Sadly
This is quite a paradigm change. Wanting to save money by reducing the crew members on duty to one in a cockpit designed for two at the cost of functionality and safety. Let's see how this works out? Real world guinea pig operations. Wouldn't this be better dealt with inside some remote research simulator cabin on the ground only?
Intentional crash
After 9/11 there was significant research into preventing repetition with use of existing on-board technology.
EGPWS, with a modified obstacle / location data base is very capable in alerting hazards.
Connecting the ‘pullup’ output to the auto flight system, in a closed secure system, could prevent an aircraft hitting obstacle or ground other than a runway (appropriate angle / speed) - in this rare situation the system overrides the crews input.
AFAIK, whilst the system was tested it was not pursued, although there were thoughts of auto pull up for commercial use. At the time this was rejected due to fear of inadvertent EGPWS / AP activation and subsequent legal cases for injury with unsecured seating.
Such is the state of aviation safety; safety culture - it is more acceptable for an aircraft to crash opposed to operators being sued for a safe outcome.
Do some modern aircraft change the FD command with EGPWS ‘pull up’ to provide a reinforcing indication of required action?
EGPWS, with a modified obstacle / location data base is very capable in alerting hazards.
Connecting the ‘pullup’ output to the auto flight system, in a closed secure system, could prevent an aircraft hitting obstacle or ground other than a runway (appropriate angle / speed) - in this rare situation the system overrides the crews input.
AFAIK, whilst the system was tested it was not pursued, although there were thoughts of auto pull up for commercial use. At the time this was rejected due to fear of inadvertent EGPWS / AP activation and subsequent legal cases for injury with unsecured seating.
Such is the state of aviation safety; safety culture - it is more acceptable for an aircraft to crash opposed to operators being sued for a safe outcome.
Do some modern aircraft change the FD command with EGPWS ‘pull up’ to provide a reinforcing indication of required action?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will worry about this when I don't have to trawl through dozens of pages of 1940's style teletext notams. We don't even have the Ai to figure out which notams are important, let alone populate aircraft systems with the relevant data. Meh!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From AinOnline...AIRBUS EXPLORE AUTONOMOUS TECH Meanwhile, Airbus is engaged in studies on operational patterns for flight crew on long-range flights. These studies are ongoing and based on a minimum of two operating crew per flight, and they are being undertaken in conjunction with the regulatory authorities and airline partners.
“With safety and social acceptance being top priorities, our mission is not to move ahead with autonomy but to explore autonomous technologies alongside technologies in materials, electrification, connectivity, and more,” an Airbus spokesperson said. “In doing so, we are able to analyze the potential of these innovations to enhance future operations, and at the same time, leverage these opportunities to further improve aircraft safety while ensuring today’s unprecedented levels are maintained.”
According to Airbus, although fully autonomous aircraft are still many years away, urban air mobility vehicles are proving to be a valuable option to start the rollout of self-piloting aircraft operations.
“New urban air mobility vehicles like Vahana have been designed to integrate self-piloting functionalities from the start. This is because flying taxi missions involve short, point-to-point flights along a restricted selection of routes using limited landing infrastructure, thus making urban air vehicles ideal for testing self-piloting operations in aircraft. Although the technology is still not mature enough to transport passengers, autonomy in aircraft operations will undoubtedly be shaped by self-piloting, flying taxi demonstrators like Vahana,” said Airbus.
No precise calendar exists for these new technologies, which are not fully mature, according to Airbus. “Based on technology availability and maturity, the first potential application of autonomous technologies might be single-pilot operations and only during the cruise phase,” the Airbus spokesperson said.
“With safety and social acceptance being top priorities, our mission is not to move ahead with autonomy but to explore autonomous technologies alongside technologies in materials, electrification, connectivity, and more,” an Airbus spokesperson said. “In doing so, we are able to analyze the potential of these innovations to enhance future operations, and at the same time, leverage these opportunities to further improve aircraft safety while ensuring today’s unprecedented levels are maintained.”
According to Airbus, although fully autonomous aircraft are still many years away, urban air mobility vehicles are proving to be a valuable option to start the rollout of self-piloting aircraft operations.
“New urban air mobility vehicles like Vahana have been designed to integrate self-piloting functionalities from the start. This is because flying taxi missions involve short, point-to-point flights along a restricted selection of routes using limited landing infrastructure, thus making urban air vehicles ideal for testing self-piloting operations in aircraft. Although the technology is still not mature enough to transport passengers, autonomy in aircraft operations will undoubtedly be shaped by self-piloting, flying taxi demonstrators like Vahana,” said Airbus.
No precise calendar exists for these new technologies, which are not fully mature, according to Airbus. “Based on technology availability and maturity, the first potential application of autonomous technologies might be single-pilot operations and only during the cruise phase,” the Airbus spokesperson said.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Taipei
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.businessinsider.com/airb...ations-2021-11
That's a fairly ****ty outlet, but I still thought it was relevant to share.
Like I said further up in this thread: cargo single ops first... This machine is more ready for it than anyone here is willing to admit
That's a fairly ****ty outlet, but I still thought it was relevant to share.
Like I said further up in this thread: cargo single ops first... This machine is more ready for it than anyone here is willing to admit
It is a cockpit made and certified for two pilots. I wonder how they want to convince the authorities to give up the safety layer of human redundancy at the controls?
If they want to do it we need a new single pilot cockpit from the grounds up including truly "fail safe" datalinks and remote infrastructure.
One lesson learned from AF447 was that it took the captain too long to regain situational awareness after being called up front from the crew rest.
If they want to do it we need a new single pilot cockpit from the grounds up including truly "fail safe" datalinks and remote infrastructure.
One lesson learned from AF447 was that it took the captain too long to regain situational awareness after being called up front from the crew rest.