Boeing studying potential for just one pilot in plane cockpit
Feb. 9, 2018 11:57 AM ET|About: The Boeing Company (BA)|By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor
Boeing (BA -1.9%) and other aircraft manufacturers are exploring the possibility of single pilot planes in a bid to cut tens of billions of dollars a year in costs of pilot salaries and training.
“We are studying that, and where you will first see that is probably in cargo transport, so the passenger question is off the table,” Boeing research and technology VP Charles Toups tells The Guardian.
It would take a “couple of decades” to persuade passengers to take a single-pilot jet, Toups says, adding that gaining public support would be a step-by-step process starting with proliferation of self-driving cars.
Boeing and Airbus (OTCPK:EADSF, OTCPK:EADSY) jets are designed for two pilots, and taking away one would require a revamp of the flight deck as well as more automated systems so controllers on the ground could take over if necessary.
I can see it now..
Pilot: "Ahhh!! Arrivals, lights and horns going off all over, you have control!"
One only needs to look at the Germanwings incident to understand why this is a bad idea for passenger operations. Not a good idea now, won't be a good idea in two decades.
dogfood wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:08 pm
There isn't 100+ lives in that drone at risk if it malfunction...
Really? What if that bomb doesn't land where it should?
Training: Simulator. Perhaps, initially, have a second seat for optionally 2-crew flights, such as training floght.
Break/Safety: Have a control center that has a handfull of remote pilots monitor the autopilot and take control as required when the pilot in the airplane takes a break. A single remote pilot can probably manage dozens of aircraft this way.
Incapacitation: Have remote crews located at airports (can be generic: 1 crew per type per airport, regardless of airline) on call to land the aircraft should the pilot be incapacitated and the autoland system be non-functionnal. You want line of sight vs sat link to reduce latency.
Won't happen anytime soon. Besides how will these captains gain any experience if they don't get any right seat experience first since airlines are hiring with very little experience as it is now?
Besides how will these captains gain any experience if they don't get any right seat experience first since airlines are hiring with very little experience as it is now?
Well when I was flying for a living we had simulators that were accurate enough to use for training and check rides on airline aircraft so as we advance technology wise I would think that the description " Pilot " may be quite different than what the industry considers a pilot today.
It was not that long ago in human history when people mocked the horseless carriage.
Boney wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:28 pm
Who’s going to look after the shop when he/she needs a bathroom break? Nice idea but not doable.
It's like what glider pilots do when they do long cross-country flights. It involves a condom which you roll on before your flight which has a tube that goes to a bag that collects the liquid.
So, not much of a difference from life today when you already are taking a box of condoms with you in your flight bag.
---------- ADS -----------
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
I can see a concept waaaaay off in the future when our current mindsets are long gone whereby a ground based control (like a drone controller sort of thing) combined with as yet undiscovered high level of automation is augmented by one fail-safe human in the flightdeck should there be a failure of these other systems. Again, not under the as-is mindset and level of tech.
What about the 8 hour rule? This won't help at all, especially on long haul in say a 787 that is already down to two crew no augment. Autopilot breaks while running a checklist after an engine failure.
So automation will fail, and our white scarfed hero with the shades and a big pilot watch will save the day....as long as a second pilot is on board! If any of you bothered to read the non emoji enhanced news, it will start with cargo.
The sense I get is many of the posters here really have no idea of how automated airline aircraft are now...
In any event, we really have to get by “me” and look at accident stats. Yes there will be accidents. There are accidents now. The question is will automation failures cause more accidents, then are caused by pilot error now,
Ego aside, I think that the answer may favour automation. Something the folks developing self driving cars have already determined. With regard to drone accidents, my understanding is they are decreasing dramatically in terms of hours/ cycles flown. They are the Alpha/beta tests for cargo flying
I too, can forsee that a “pilot” in 20 years will be very different than pilots of the past. And we may see assistants rather than FO’s.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by trey kule on Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
not 1 autopilot.....many autopilots. not 1 computer many computers. the space shuttle had 5 diffrent flight guidance computers. the closest 3 were followed. they were programmed with diffremt software by diffrent companies......that was the 70's. the miracle on the hudson doesnt happen cause early recognition. the ATR in Indonesia doesnt happen cause the pilots shutdown the wrong engine. colagen into buffalo doesnt happen cause of flight envelope protection. MH370 doesnt happen cause the captain or first officer cant make it dissapear. Automation is going to happen in our lifetime.
It is already happening the biggest problem with it is pilots are still able to shut it off or ignore it, or forget it.
Typical example was the crew in that big jet at SFO who flew it into the ground short of the runway because they forgot you need power to maintain a flight path. They obviously saw nothing wrong with raising the nose to go up and forgot it also requires power at some point.
The only thing that saved so many people from being killed was how well made the modern jets really are.
Automation doesn’t fly today’s airplanes, pilots do using the automation as a tool. The failures like SFO that the “experts” like to cite are caused by pilots who think like they do that the automation can do stuff that it doesn’t.
Automation is not ON or OFF, it is a question of how much automation is appropriate for any given situation and anybody who knows anything about it knows how much the pilot is directly controlling every aspect of it. They also know how often the fully managed modes routinely need intervention in a benign environment never mind a busy terminal area or visual approach.
People who actually know what they’re talking about with automation know that nothing less than artificial intelligence could come close to doing it safely. And people who know what they’re talking about with AI have their own very significant concerns and warning regarding that.
So flying in direct law in an Airbus you can move the sidestick back and then fully right or left and the machine will do a complete roll for you?
The failures like SFO that the “experts” like to cite are caused by pilots who think like they do that the automation can do stuff that it doesn’t.
SFO was not a failure of the automation it was a failure on the part of a flight deck full of their best pilots failing to use the automation properly and allowing it to fly into the ground.
