BoeingDriver99

Design philosophy doesn't need to change. It's the automation and system redundancies that change. A350 also has same basic philosophy as a 320 but it has automatic TCAP, TCAS, Auto EMER DES, automatic handling of unreliable air speed, AP availability in degraded mode and even after dual ening fail. So that's a lot different isn't it?

Yes vilas; very different. That’s why they went ahead and gave it a new number and everything.

Vilas said: “So that's a lot different isn't it?”

Guaranteed to work 100% of the time? Just so, you know, the bloke left all by himself can cope. And the other bloke rushing up to the flight deck, bleary-eyed and only half awake, has the time to become alert and rapidly assess the situation. What could possibly go wrong?

I am reminded of the scene from the movie "A Bridge Too Far" when General Sosabowski says to "Boy" Browning, who has just presented his plan to take 3 bridges over a 65 mile stretch of road, "the Germans General, what about the Germans?" All said with a truly appalling Polish accent by Gene Hackman. With statements such as:

the question that needs to be asked is "The weather, what about the weather?" I am going to make a broad assumption that the person making the quoted statement is an engineer of some description and not an airline pilot. Even in a country like Oz with weather considered to reasonably benign thunderstorms, passing cold fronts and unforecast fog very quickly turns a "tightly controlled" environment into the chaos that they associate with road transport. It always is assumed that the aircraft are simply flown from point A to point B without any deviation or variation demanded by ATC. What Airbus is proposing is not a great leap in technology but a significant change to regulation. The great leap in technology is still many decades away. When I see the major manufacturers announce the design and production of an autonomous airliner with commitments from the airlines only then can the tech heads claim victory over analogue biology in the flight deck.

I find it humourous that what Cathay essentially wants to do is have one pilot take "controlled rest" in a separate rest facility (i.e. one that will take significant time and resources to be awakened in and return to the cockpit from) when, until recently, this was only allowed for short periods of time (so as to prevent sleep inertia) and in the cockpit (so as to be able to respond quickly to a situation requiring 2 crew input).
They want to able to do it in the A350, an aircraft that currently operates under the extant "controlled rest" provisions and have Airbus sort out all the problems associated with this major philosophical shift from the at-hand-sleep-inertia-mitigating-controlled-rest provisions to the remote-deep-sleep proposal.
And all to cater for reduced pilot numbers. Because they won't be to able to retain or attract crew in the future.

fergusd said:fully automated planes are more than possible,
but still not probable.

Even if the normal Hulls and Liabilities insurance market will accept them, which is a big ask, the War Risks insurance market won't until the threat of hostile intervention of the control systems of fully automated aircraft has been 99.9% eliminated. Good luck with that!

It might be way more easy to start this with freighters as passenger acceptance for any trial is far from guaranteed.

Maybe not LH as there are very few cargo aeroplanes that don't start out as passenger aircraft. If an operator wanted to alter the minimum crew requirement of an existing design then it would have to be recertified. If Airbus develop a pilotless version of the Beluga then I will accept that manufacturers are pushing ahead with their vision of the future and not just spending tax deductible R&D money.

While I see the point about arguments over Navs and Flight Engineer's their role was primarily to support the two pilots. Now that they are gone from the flight deck the support role is done by the two pilots suporting each other when one is PM and one is PF. The support is provided by someone who is physically present which is a much safer option than someone providing support via a datalink that is not guaranteed to be reliable or available 100% of the time.

This was the start of this thread.

Why are we discussing single pilot ops for takeoff and landing?

Because

https://www.euractiv.com/section/avi...ilot-aircraft/

How can non redundant be an equivalent or higher level of safety?

Ok let’s jump forward some years and assume that this single pilot concept has finally found its way in the industry. I’m wondering about what the training background of the new captains would be once the pool of old style multi crew pilots dried out:
Flight school (maybe similar to nowadays MPL) ->…………….-> seat 0A on A350?? :confused:

….so what of the lessons we learned with GermanWings? There are more reasons than system redundancy for having more than one person on the flight deck.

These A350 operators will throw all those lessons away to save a buck by cutting out the second officer…. Crazy. This will not end well!

Quite honestly, that issue has been moved to a different point in the career: yearly psych evaluations during the medical, plus thorough in psych evaluations before hiring someone and again before upgrading him or her to captain. Pilots being alone on the flight deck is absolute normal routine anyway.

Psychological evaluation is not like blood pressure or sugar. There are no clear cut parameters for psychological well being. Most accidents are caused by psychologically normal, some excellent humans but professionally poor pilots. With human factors and just culture providing them a safety jacket they don't have to worry much any way.

May I quote Chesley Sullenberger? (Captain of Cactus 1549, who with F/O Jeff Skiles, was forced to land in the Hudson river after a double engine failure).

"Everything we know in aviation, every rule in the rule book, every procedure we have, we know because someone somewhere died....
We have purchased at great cost, lessons literally bought with blood that we have to preserve as institutional knowledge and pass on to succeeding generations. We cannot have the moral failure of forgetting these lessons and have to relearn them."

Try to explain that to a CX bean counter and let me know how you get on.

incapacitated
 

Hi,
I find the single pilot idea on passenger aircraft a bit absurd.
Check out Aviation Herald. https://avherald.com/ , search for ´incapacitated´.
Numerous instances are then listed.

For safety, two pilots are needed in the cockpit.

But Swire don't want to pay for two pilots in the cruise....when are you people just going to accept that!
They'll find a way to make it appear safe.