Airbus + Cathay working on Single Pilot during Cruise with A350
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real problem here, is that technological advancements are being resisted based on the misconception that the catastrophic failure scenarios that many contributors conjure up, can be dealt with by the average pilot, there is not evidence in this regard. It is the reliability of technology, that ensures that these failures are so rare, that pilots of average or mediocre skill level, can ensure positive outcomes in this almost error-free environment. We must factor out the pilot in areas where they perform inherently poorly as a result of their humanness, from there there is a small jump to the pilot supporting the machine, rather than the machine supporting the pilot, small, but inevitable and absolutely crucial as the environment in which aircraft operates changes.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or just fix the fatigue and incompetence issues.
Maintain the standards and checking. But that costs money and accountants don't like it.
You pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
Maintain the standards and checking. But that costs money and accountants don't like it.
You pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintaining high standard, in selection, training and checking is difficult even in one country like the US, globally impossible. Since energy levels of every one are different, threshold of fatigue and rest also differ. Remuneration alone doesn't improve the standard.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s get one thing straight, vilas.
Cathay and Airbus are not embarking on this project to improve safety.
There is one reason, and one reason only.
Money.
If you think 2 pilots in cruise are bad, just wait until you try one solo.
Cathay and Airbus are not embarking on this project to improve safety.
There is one reason, and one reason only.
Money.
If you think 2 pilots in cruise are bad, just wait until you try one solo.
I agree with you FC. Do you think the software engineers lining up to bring us this brave new world of air travel will work for reduced wages because of the glamour of working for the airlines?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have the same discussion in ATC . The "4 eyes principle" (4EP) is an internationally agreed human factor safety concept adopted some years ago by ICAO (you can google it if you want more details) It demonstrates that monitoring the activities of one another has considerable safety benefits and was therefore the rule in both ATC and flight crews. In recent years pressure to made to have this recommended concept removed in ATC The now famous single man operations . We are seeing this pressure also in the business jets community , led by Embraer .
The Ueberlingen collision in 2002 put a temporary halt to its development in ATC, but times goes by , it is nearly 20 years ago, and people forget and change. One thing is constant tough : the automation that is supposed to mitigate all this can fail, be disabled or become U/S without much warnings.
The Ueberlingen collision in 2002 put a temporary halt to its development in ATC, but times goes by , it is nearly 20 years ago, and people forget and change. One thing is constant tough : the automation that is supposed to mitigate all this can fail, be disabled or become U/S without much warnings.
Automation and new technology should add safety. Taking out minimal crew down to only one single pilot in the cockpit decreases safety.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derfred
Although it should not be at the cost of safety but profit is the raison d'etre of any business. Deeper the airline's pocket stronger is it's ability to survive adverse market conditions. The employees should not ridicule or trivialise every cost saving measure. Because a closed airline doesn't help anyone.
Although it should not be at the cost of safety but profit is the raison d'etre of any business. Deeper the airline's pocket stronger is it's ability to survive adverse market conditions. The employees should not ridicule or trivialise every cost saving measure. Because a closed airline doesn't help anyone.
It looks like the proven equilibrum between cost and safety is shifting to give cost more weight?
Although it should not be at the cost of safety but profit is the raison d'etre of any business.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really depends on what you call safe.
In the earlier part of the 20th century people flew everwhere, companies made profits but planes quite "often" crashed.
In this age, planes crash way less often, but they still do, often because of avoidable reasons. Still companies make profits, people fly.
Everything we do in life can be safer, from driving a car to baking a bread, from flying a plane to building your house.
It is always a cost-risk balance. If we did everything as safe as technology and psychology would allow us, things would be unpayable and take way longer to produce.
All our rosters, airplanes, procedures, training are a result of that balance. I think I can succesfully argue that flights between 9am and 5pm are safer than a redeye/through the night flight (which doesn't say those are unsafe), and that most flight would be even safer with 3 pilots up front than 2, but we still regularly take the cheaper, easier to plan "less safe" option.
It is all about where you (we) place the lower limit of what we call safe.And that is also a regional thing. While in the US a ferry service is subject to numerous rules and regulations to achieve a level of acceptable (un)safety, in certain other countries they are way more happy to board a rickety vessel knowing full well they often capsize or sink killing 250 people. And still, those companies are in business.
In the earlier part of the 20th century people flew everwhere, companies made profits but planes quite "often" crashed.
In this age, planes crash way less often, but they still do, often because of avoidable reasons. Still companies make profits, people fly.
Everything we do in life can be safer, from driving a car to baking a bread, from flying a plane to building your house.
It is always a cost-risk balance. If we did everything as safe as technology and psychology would allow us, things would be unpayable and take way longer to produce.
All our rosters, airplanes, procedures, training are a result of that balance. I think I can succesfully argue that flights between 9am and 5pm are safer than a redeye/through the night flight (which doesn't say those are unsafe), and that most flight would be even safer with 3 pilots up front than 2, but we still regularly take the cheaper, easier to plan "less safe" option.
It is all about where you (we) place the lower limit of what we call safe.And that is also a regional thing. While in the US a ferry service is subject to numerous rules and regulations to achieve a level of acceptable (un)safety, in certain other countries they are way more happy to board a rickety vessel knowing full well they often capsize or sink killing 250 people. And still, those companies are in business.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Boeing did was serious because it was done knowingly. What I am saying doesn't support that at all. I am very sure Airbus has no desire to get into Boeing shoes and give up all the advantage that has fallen in their lap. But no one should have a problem accepting that business enterprises are not philanthropic organisations but are for making money .And pilots are in it for enhancing it to enhances their earnings in return. It applies to pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, luxury goods everything. As long as humans add to safety they will definitely be there. But if humans become the problem and technology gives solutions then their role will get restricted.
Last edited by vilas; 29th Jun 2021 at 14:52.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting idea but they won't be seeking approval for single-pilot operation: they need approval for zero pilot operations during cruise. When I leave the flight deck to take my morning dump, then it either needs to be left empty but locked (that'll be a laugh if the keypad fails) or with a member of cabin crew in it, which is laughable from a security perspective. Or you extend the flight deck backwards so that the bunks and toilet are enclosed but then you'll lose galley space, access from doors 1, and several rows of seats.
Or you could just have two pilots.
Or you could just have two pilots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day planes won’t be required. Because everything in the world will be automated and there will be no jobs for humans, at which point there will only be billionaires and machines, all humans will be dead, except for a few slaves to entertain the billionaires, and a few scientists to monitor and maintain the machines.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice science fiction theory but I will offer one note of optimism , I read a few years ago an interesting remark : Robots do not vote, buy things and pay taxes ...You need lots of humans with money to keep the system going.. Automation has its political limits ..
But single man operations ? that is coming , it is now a question of when rather that if ..
But single man operations ? that is coming , it is now a question of when rather that if ..
I'd dare to speculate it will have to be either fully automated or operated by two pilots. Mixing philosophies is a dangerous thing.
However we are not at fully automated for passenger flights and won't be for some time. The most likely thing to happen first might be some unmanned "slave" aircraft, like a freighter, following some manned aircraft in automated close formation like a bot.
However we are not at fully automated for passenger flights and won't be for some time. The most likely thing to happen first might be some unmanned "slave" aircraft, like a freighter, following some manned aircraft in automated close formation like a bot.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the second pilot must not be physically in the aircraft , but on the ground serving multiple "airborne" pilots . That is at least what the NASA Conops study implies . The RPA/ UAV emerging technologies are slowly coming into play , not advocating it, just making the remark .
As to the freighter following a pax , Airbus already works on that one , together with their " Fello' fly" project. I am going to watch the first tests soon , looks like fun ..
As to the freighter following a pax , Airbus already works on that one , together with their " Fello' fly" project. I am going to watch the first tests soon , looks like fun ..
