Airbus + Cathay working on Single Pilot during Cruise with A350
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting paper by some guys at RMIT Melbourne just popped into my inbox via acedemia.edu . Explains the pathway toward single pilot operations.
Commercial Airline Single-Pilot Operations: System Design and Pathways to Certification
Commercial Airline Single-Pilot Operations: System Design and Pathways to Certification
I always find these scenarios amusing. Boeing justify dishing out a 1970s system architecture in a 737 on cost yet somehow these guys completely change everything from the rules to the systems to the method of operating and claim that it's 'cheaper'. It's going to be cheaper and safer to pay pilots a little more than reinvent the whole wheel. It would also be cheaper if manufacturers actually built 'modern' aircraft however that doesn't ever come into the equation. A320s are 80s aeroplane and the 737 from the 60's. Some change in regulation might help too. Why do we spend so much time in the sim? Why can we cut some of that back? Especially for more experienced crews.
Bottom line is: who is actually asking for cheaper flights and cheaper crew costs?
Most customers will click on the cheaper fare - it's human nature - but most customers will not know how that cheaper fare has become possible and what corners have been cut. If they did, they might well avoid some operators.
Pilots already have to work longer hours between breaks than HGV truck drivers - (which seems odd, because pilots have to deal with the emergency correctly to literally stay alive, whereas HGV drivers operate in only two dimensions, and at any sign of trouble, can simply stop and get out of the truck in less than a minute).
How will a single pilot deal with an explosive decompression if they don't get their oxygen mask on, or something happens to their mask?
Technology has enabled us to retire the engineer, the navigator and the radio operator from the flight deck, but having less than two pilots is a saving too far.
How will a German wings suicide scenario be prevented with a single pilot? I can imagine the scenes at the destination airport after a crash; with families of passengers crying and asking 'how was this even possible?'.
Costs have already been cut to below what is sensible in my opinion. The number of incidents involving basic mistakes in recent years points towards pilot, training and engineering costs having been cut too far already. The regulators need to say no !
Most customers will click on the cheaper fare - it's human nature - but most customers will not know how that cheaper fare has become possible and what corners have been cut. If they did, they might well avoid some operators.
Pilots already have to work longer hours between breaks than HGV truck drivers - (which seems odd, because pilots have to deal with the emergency correctly to literally stay alive, whereas HGV drivers operate in only two dimensions, and at any sign of trouble, can simply stop and get out of the truck in less than a minute).
How will a single pilot deal with an explosive decompression if they don't get their oxygen mask on, or something happens to their mask?
Technology has enabled us to retire the engineer, the navigator and the radio operator from the flight deck, but having less than two pilots is a saving too far.
How will a German wings suicide scenario be prevented with a single pilot? I can imagine the scenes at the destination airport after a crash; with families of passengers crying and asking 'how was this even possible?'.
Costs have already been cut to below what is sensible in my opinion. The number of incidents involving basic mistakes in recent years points towards pilot, training and engineering costs having been cut too far already. The regulators need to say no !
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker
There may other complications but I will answer two specific questions raised by you. A350 can do EMER DES without any intervention from pilot and includes all the actions that pilot may do. German wings case is a rare occurrence and I don't think it's avoidable with two in front. The more common occurrence is, Rostov on don with two in front and one on the left going crazy and copilot unable to prevent the crash. Atlas air with two in front and one on the right going crazy and the captain unable to prevent the crash or like in Paris in a A350, three of them in front with a false WS ahead warning, all three going crazy and forgetting the AP is off just hit TOGA and nobody flies the aircraft for sometime causing excursion on to the other RW, busting Go around altitude. Some human factor is pulled out of the hat to close the case. I posted before that humans are in the front to use their skills to save the situation but when serviceable aircraft without any mitigation are crashed by those in front then it defeats the purpose of having them there. Human factors is a bad advertisement for human presence. So technology says if you cannot change humans then replace them.
There may other complications but I will answer two specific questions raised by you. A350 can do EMER DES without any intervention from pilot and includes all the actions that pilot may do. German wings case is a rare occurrence and I don't think it's avoidable with two in front. The more common occurrence is, Rostov on don with two in front and one on the left going crazy and copilot unable to prevent the crash. Atlas air with two in front and one on the right going crazy and the captain unable to prevent the crash or like in Paris in a A350, three of them in front with a false WS ahead warning, all three going crazy and forgetting the AP is off just hit TOGA and nobody flies the aircraft for sometime causing excursion on to the other RW, busting Go around altitude. Some human factor is pulled out of the hat to close the case. I posted before that humans are in the front to use their skills to save the situation but when serviceable aircraft without any mitigation are crashed by those in front then it defeats the purpose of having them there. Human factors is a bad advertisement for human presence. So technology says if you cannot change humans then replace them.
Last edited by vilas; 24th Aug 2021 at 13:30.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Holiday Inn
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Question is, how do you train the one pilot left in a one crew cockpit, if the pilot under training is also in the cockpit with the more experienced pilot, then there is no savings 🤷♂️
German wings case is a rare occurrence and I don't think it's avoidable with two in front.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with two pilots one goes out to toilet. I am not sure all airlines follow policy of bringing in a cabin crew for that, even that is just to open the door. But cabin crew who don't know flying cannot prevent a repeat of German wings because a 737 can be put on it's back in seconds. And if the reason for these rare occurrences is only due to second guy, you are suggesting that a great number of pilots are mentally disturbed and just waiting for an opportunity to kill themselves. Surely that's not the case.
How many ATPL's are there in the world? What is the percentage of the population with serious mental health issues? Having the cockpit occupied by a single pilot for hours at a time is not how you want to discover if there is
There is also the elephant in the room and that is COVID. Pilots have been hit particularly hard with border closures and stand downs. In the US as air travel has recovered and they are wearing the brunt of over enthusiastic schedules with the result that they are having rosters disrupted and at times been left standing at the kerb waiting for non-existent transport to unmade hotel bookings. So thinking that we all just go back to 2019 as though nothing has happened and everyone is fine is naive at best and dangerous at the extreme end. So the last thing you want to do is have pilots isolated and in the dark.
a great number of pilots are mentally disturbed and just waiting for an opportunity to kill themselves
Last edited by Lookleft; 25th Aug 2021 at 07:28.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Solihull
Age: 38
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm currently doing a post-grad management course, and have access to the university's library. This discussion piqued my interest so I went on a hunt, and I've found the article referenced above. Next on the list of journal articles was an article entitled 'Passenger attitudes to flying on a single-pilot commercial aircraft', from the Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors journal. The abstract says this;
Which, I think, seems to sum up pretty much what everyone expected!
See Passenger Attitudes to Flying on a Single-Pilot Commercial Aircraft | Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (hogrefe.com)
The feedback from the focus groups highlighted distrust in technology, concerns about pilot health and workload, and the need for more information on single-pilot operations but also that if there were substantial savings passengers may be willing to fly on such an aircraft. The results of the survey suggested three main dimensions to passenger opinion on the subject: state of the pilot; trust in the technology; ticket price and reputation. Responses on these scales could determine with some certainty passengers' willingness to fly or not to fly on a single-pilot airliner.
See Passenger Attitudes to Flying on a Single-Pilot Commercial Aircraft | Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (hogrefe.com)
vilas cites some sobering examples of poor piloting. Yes, we should remove poor pilots from the flight deck - but not leaving just one pilot ! Single pilot operations is the wrong cure for the problem. We already know how to fix this with the technology we already have: Well trained, properly examined, well rested, reasonably rostered teams of pilots, backed-up with well trained, well rested engineering and operations departments and ground crews.
What seems to have been happening is that in the push for ever lower fares, all aspects of airliner flying have been gradually eroded to where we are now; that some pilots are too tired or are just not very good pilots. Training and examining has been reduced so perhaps more marginal pilots are getting through.
And it seems ironic that to even get to an airline interview these days, one has to pass ever more ridiculous psychometric tests and written essays; none of which I have ever had to do - or even consider - on a flight deck while flying a plane !
With auto TCAS, auto EMER DES, and automatic single pilot cockpits, etc, maybe it will not be so important to airline managements that a pilot must be well rested, have good hand eye coordination, calmness in emergencies and good flying ability.
For 99% of flights, the airline managements might get away with that, but for the 1% when the automatics fail or a Qantas A380 engine explodes or a BA 747 flies through a dust cloud, stopping all engines, (which those (multi-pilot) crews managed to work through and land safely)............are managements thinking it would be a reasonable risk?
What seems to have been happening is that in the push for ever lower fares, all aspects of airliner flying have been gradually eroded to where we are now; that some pilots are too tired or are just not very good pilots. Training and examining has been reduced so perhaps more marginal pilots are getting through.
And it seems ironic that to even get to an airline interview these days, one has to pass ever more ridiculous psychometric tests and written essays; none of which I have ever had to do - or even consider - on a flight deck while flying a plane !
With auto TCAS, auto EMER DES, and automatic single pilot cockpits, etc, maybe it will not be so important to airline managements that a pilot must be well rested, have good hand eye coordination, calmness in emergencies and good flying ability.
For 99% of flights, the airline managements might get away with that, but for the 1% when the automatics fail or a Qantas A380 engine explodes or a BA 747 flies through a dust cloud, stopping all engines, (which those (multi-pilot) crews managed to work through and land safely)............are managements thinking it would be a reasonable risk?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're making the mistake of thinking that the cost saving is just the salary. The cost to the company of the employee, by the time you have social security costs, admin costs, training costs etc is typically at least twice what they actually get paid. And in this era of people expecting tickets for next to nothing, then saving $48 per ticket is potentialy the difference between the company being there next year and not.
But what's the cost of reinventing the wheel? The aircraft will cost more up front. You now need all this new regulation. Insurance has a big question mark over it. Software development will need a complete and total cultural change and become Human Factors critical. No more of this "just ship it and we'll patch it up when they find the bugs in the middle of the night over the ocean" The cost of that will be exponential to the current "lowest bidder" mentality.
In reality I think it will ultimately achieve nothing but just shift a whole bunch of risk and cost around from one area to another.
In reality I think it will ultimately achieve nothing but just shift a whole bunch of risk and cost around from one area to another.
When Boeing was developing the 767 (~1978-1982), the FAA released their study that said that a 2 crew flight deck was just as safe as 3 crew. Boeing went to the launch customers and asked if they'd fess up $500,000/aircraft for an EICAS equipped 2 crew instead of a 3 crew. Every customer immediately responded YES! (except Ansett - and that was apparently union related). They said break-even for crew costs was just over a year - and that was early 80's - figure ~4x that in today's money. The costs to do it are largely non-recurring - so once the airframer has done the development the delta cost to each additional aircraft is small.
Not saying it's the right thing to do (I have mixed feelings), just pointing out the economics.
BTW, while the presence of another pilot may help discourage a potentially suicidal pilot, if a pilot decides they really want to crash the aircraft, having a second (or third) pilot is unlikely to stop them. Going full nose down close to the ground will suffice (e.g. Atlas 3591, although I don't think that was intentional).
Not saying it's the right thing to do (I have mixed feelings), just pointing out the economics.
BTW, while the presence of another pilot may help discourage a potentially suicidal pilot, if a pilot decides they really want to crash the aircraft, having a second (or third) pilot is unlikely to stop them. Going full nose down close to the ground will suffice (e.g. Atlas 3591, although I don't think that was intentional).
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer
Exactly my views. As pilots we forget that commercial aviation is a business first, everything else comes after that because a failed airline sends every one home. Safety of single pilot operation cannot be considered in isolation but is a comparable issue. Will it be safer than present situation? Accident happen with machines also but will they be less than due to errors of humans in the seat? Most pilot don't take this into consideration. I am repeatedly saying that pilot has to justify his presence in the cockpit. If one looks at the crashes that are happening in General Aviation and part 135 it's bad news. Passengers will travel if fares are cheap. Many will take as an adventure.
Exactly my views. As pilots we forget that commercial aviation is a business first, everything else comes after that because a failed airline sends every one home. Safety of single pilot operation cannot be considered in isolation but is a comparable issue. Will it be safer than present situation? Accident happen with machines also but will they be less than due to errors of humans in the seat? Most pilot don't take this into consideration. I am repeatedly saying that pilot has to justify his presence in the cockpit. If one looks at the crashes that are happening in General Aviation and part 135 it's bad news. Passengers will travel if fares are cheap. Many will take as an adventure.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer, as usual an interesting insight from your obvious longtime industry experience, thanks for that.
However, on the specific subject of autonomuous-flying-economies, I think you underestimate the rise in complexity, cost, maintenance and downtime of a more autonomuous aviation system.
Replacing the redundancy of two well trained pilots (who are capable to deal on the spot with the myriads of hickups a complex aviation system endures every day) with software and automatic hardware is a fundamental change in the design and operation of our aviation system. I do not see this as cheaper than two pilots, quite the opposite.
Indeed I think that the evolution is coming to an end here - except may be single pilot CRUISE could still be achieved.
However, on the specific subject of autonomuous-flying-economies, I think you underestimate the rise in complexity, cost, maintenance and downtime of a more autonomuous aviation system.
Replacing the redundancy of two well trained pilots (who are capable to deal on the spot with the myriads of hickups a complex aviation system endures every day) with software and automatic hardware is a fundamental change in the design and operation of our aviation system. I do not see this as cheaper than two pilots, quite the opposite.
Indeed I think that the evolution is coming to an end here - except may be single pilot CRUISE could still be achieved.
Hi tdracer, Absolutely; we don't need a separate radio operator, a separate navigator, or a separate radar operator in the cockpit, any more, and we usually don't need a flying engineer. Technology has improved so much that those roles can be performed to a reasonable safety standard by two pilots.
My argument is against less than two pilots. Two should be the absolute minimum in my opinion. If we go to one pilot and that pilot goes faulty, what then? OK, the aircraft might be able to autonomously descend to FL 100, and possibly even turn towards the closest planned ETOPS alternate. But what then? Even ILS Auto-lands - that we have been doing for years - need a lot of pilot input and monitoring. How would the authorities allow an aircraft to autonomously descend, approach, and land with a single incapacitated pilot?
Single cruise pilot ? Well, if there is a serious problem, the other pilot can be woken up and take control? That did not work well for AF447, and it's hard to see how that would work with an explosive decompression, or an engine blow up like the Qantas A380.
I acknowledge the push for ever lower prices, but to what end? All that does is persuade people to fly when they would otherwise have used land transport or holidayed in their own country. Pushing prices down encourages more people to fly - it creates a market, as Ryanair have done. But who actually, really benefits?
Would anyone seriously consider building a single-engined airliner to cross an ocean? It would be cheaper.
My argument is against less than two pilots. Two should be the absolute minimum in my opinion. If we go to one pilot and that pilot goes faulty, what then? OK, the aircraft might be able to autonomously descend to FL 100, and possibly even turn towards the closest planned ETOPS alternate. But what then? Even ILS Auto-lands - that we have been doing for years - need a lot of pilot input and monitoring. How would the authorities allow an aircraft to autonomously descend, approach, and land with a single incapacitated pilot?
Single cruise pilot ? Well, if there is a serious problem, the other pilot can be woken up and take control? That did not work well for AF447, and it's hard to see how that would work with an explosive decompression, or an engine blow up like the Qantas A380.
I acknowledge the push for ever lower prices, but to what end? All that does is persuade people to fly when they would otherwise have used land transport or holidayed in their own country. Pushing prices down encourages more people to fly - it creates a market, as Ryanair have done. But who actually, really benefits?
Would anyone seriously consider building a single-engined airliner to cross an ocean? It would be cheaper.
Last edited by Uplinker; 26th Aug 2021 at 10:30.