"Dangers of Reduced Crew Operations" - IFALPA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Dangers of Reduced Crew Operations" - IFALPA
Received today: IFALPA Position paper entitled "Dangers of Reduced Crew Operations" (Nov. 6, 2020)
Salient quote from intro:
"Despite [commercial aviation's] enviable safety record, various commercial aviation interests are actively considering and planning to remove pilots from airline aircraft. They are advocating for systems which will reduce the number of pilots down to a single pilot, or in some cases, no pilot at all."
Short form of Position Paper;
https://www.ifalpa.org/media/3570/20...operations.pdf
Long form of Position Paper:
https://ifalpa.org/media/3568/20pos0...operations.pdf
Some people and groups who are concerned with these and similar questions or issues have argued that reductions in pilot roles is inevitable, pointing to advances in technology as well as fallibility of humans. Others have disagreed, relying on points which this SLF/attorney believes will be found in the IFALPA position paper (among others). (Sorry for this pedantic intro, it's just for context....)
If the arguments made by IFALPA are valid, the fact that it represents the interests of pilots should not be viewed as any basis to dismiss their arguments or to be more summarily dismissive. After all, does any other entity, formal or less structured, have a valid claim for being "the global voice of pilots"? It - IFALPA - doesn't encompass all organized labor groups of pilots, yet it is the closest thing to authoritative which exists, is it not? (raison d'être for this thread . . . . ).
(The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations states that in "the interest of flight safety, reproduction of this publication in whole or in part is encouraged.")
Salient quote from intro:
"Despite [commercial aviation's] enviable safety record, various commercial aviation interests are actively considering and planning to remove pilots from airline aircraft. They are advocating for systems which will reduce the number of pilots down to a single pilot, or in some cases, no pilot at all."
Short form of Position Paper;
https://www.ifalpa.org/media/3570/20...operations.pdf
Long form of Position Paper:
https://ifalpa.org/media/3568/20pos0...operations.pdf
Some people and groups who are concerned with these and similar questions or issues have argued that reductions in pilot roles is inevitable, pointing to advances in technology as well as fallibility of humans. Others have disagreed, relying on points which this SLF/attorney believes will be found in the IFALPA position paper (among others). (Sorry for this pedantic intro, it's just for context....)
If the arguments made by IFALPA are valid, the fact that it represents the interests of pilots should not be viewed as any basis to dismiss their arguments or to be more summarily dismissive. After all, does any other entity, formal or less structured, have a valid claim for being "the global voice of pilots"? It - IFALPA - doesn't encompass all organized labor groups of pilots, yet it is the closest thing to authoritative which exists, is it not? (raison d'être for this thread . . . . ).
(The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations states that in "the interest of flight safety, reproduction of this publication in whole or in part is encouraged.")
"… IFALPA - doesn't encompass all organized labor groups of pilots, yet it is the closest thing to authoritative which exists, is it … "
Just because IFALPA represents some pilots does not confer authority to speak for all others
Their position paper reads more as a 'protective cover' than well researched and thoughtful views about why one course of action should be avoided; without alternative.
- "we don't want this", - a conclusion before the fact, unsubstantiated factors and issues, opinions and irrelevancies about a subject which demands a much wider audience than a pilots association.
'Conjecture', your honour; not evidence.
Considering reduced crew operations together with futuristic pilotless flight suggests weak technical understanding, timescales, safety objectives, and the rationale of aviation. These aspects undermine any authoritative status.
IFALPA's conclusion infers that developments where technology replaces pilots creates risk; yet if risk is considered as the amount of uncertainty which has to be managed, then a better strategy is to work with technology, identify uncertainties, reduce risk by developing a safer and profitable industry where man and machine work in harmony.
Just because IFALPA represents some pilots does not confer authority to speak for all others
Their position paper reads more as a 'protective cover' than well researched and thoughtful views about why one course of action should be avoided; without alternative.
- "we don't want this", - a conclusion before the fact, unsubstantiated factors and issues, opinions and irrelevancies about a subject which demands a much wider audience than a pilots association.
'Conjecture', your honour; not evidence.
Considering reduced crew operations together with futuristic pilotless flight suggests weak technical understanding, timescales, safety objectives, and the rationale of aviation. These aspects undermine any authoritative status.
IFALPA's conclusion infers that developments where technology replaces pilots creates risk; yet if risk is considered as the amount of uncertainty which has to be managed, then a better strategy is to work with technology, identify uncertainties, reduce risk by developing a safer and profitable industry where man and machine work in harmony.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small point about the International Federation itself - I'm pretty certain it does not represent pilots as individuals organized into one labor organization, but rather is constituted of a number of pilots' associations in various countries. It's like some large national trade associations in the U.S. - the American Widget-makers Bureau is constituted of separate State Widget-Maker Bureaus organized and operating in almost all of the 50 states, and each State Bureau has its own organizational charter, programming, points of view on issues of the day to a significant extent, and so forth.
Which relates to a hopefully larger point. The International Federation has more of an advocacy role, on matters of policy, than would be possible for most if not all of the separate national associations. At the same time it is on an equal organizational footing, or nearly equal, with groups and bodies (besides those constituted of pilots' groups) who speak, on at least an ostensibly authoritative level, to major civil aviation issues, questions and problems.
While there is no reasoned disagreement with your saying it does not represent all pilots, is there another group or organization which also should be considered as authoritative to some degree? And likewise, about the "much wider audience" - who is sitting in that audience, and are they organized or constituted into groups? (of course in a context of discussing and debating the merits of the factual and value judgment elements of this contentious subject).
Which relates to a hopefully larger point. The International Federation has more of an advocacy role, on matters of policy, than would be possible for most if not all of the separate national associations. At the same time it is on an equal organizational footing, or nearly equal, with groups and bodies (besides those constituted of pilots' groups) who speak, on at least an ostensibly authoritative level, to major civil aviation issues, questions and problems.
While there is no reasoned disagreement with your saying it does not represent all pilots, is there another group or organization which also should be considered as authoritative to some degree? And likewise, about the "much wider audience" - who is sitting in that audience, and are they organized or constituted into groups? (of course in a context of discussing and debating the merits of the factual and value judgment elements of this contentious subject).
