Future 797 single pilot?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
Knowing what I know now, I just can't see myself boarding a plane without a pilot. I trust the flawed human way more than the supposedly triply-redundant ultra-fail-safe computers.
58
58
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:46 pm
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
No worries.
The 'gram, Facebook, twotter and the like will be there
for your in flight entertainment.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
It ain’t gonna happen for the following reasons:
- Boeing or any manufacturer would have to prove to the regulators that a one pilot airplane would as safe or safer than a two person airplane. It would be difficult if not impossible to make that case.
- as you can see with the MAX issue, there is no tolerance for accidents of one aircraft type. Accidents of a one pilot aircraft would make these aircraft permanently to toxic to consumers and airlines.
- Automation does fail. Boeing and Airbus and others have proven that.
- There are scores and scores of examples of automation failing and the pilot(s) saving the day. It’s never front page news, however.
- When one considers the incremental cost of a second pilot onboard compared to the second pilot on the ground, it is in the dollar per hour per passenger range. The traveling public would be happy to pay that. Yes, there are bozo’s that say that they wouldn’t but they would be the exception.
- Even bean counters can figure out that incremental cost of a second human on the aircraft is a small investment compared to the cost of a single accident that would have been prevented.
- Boeing or any manufacturer would have to prove to the regulators that a one pilot airplane would as safe or safer than a two person airplane. It would be difficult if not impossible to make that case.
- as you can see with the MAX issue, there is no tolerance for accidents of one aircraft type. Accidents of a one pilot aircraft would make these aircraft permanently to toxic to consumers and airlines.
- Automation does fail. Boeing and Airbus and others have proven that.
- There are scores and scores of examples of automation failing and the pilot(s) saving the day. It’s never front page news, however.
- When one considers the incremental cost of a second pilot onboard compared to the second pilot on the ground, it is in the dollar per hour per passenger range. The traveling public would be happy to pay that. Yes, there are bozo’s that say that they wouldn’t but they would be the exception.
- Even bean counters can figure out that incremental cost of a second human on the aircraft is a small investment compared to the cost of a single accident that would have been prevented.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
if you're saying its cause of the cost of having the 1 pilot on board vs 2 and having 1 pilot on the ground. They would soon find a way to have that 1 pilot being the 2nd pilot on more then 1 airplane at a time. Thats where the real savings would be.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
Or pilot 2 is helping serve cookies in the back after TO/landing
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
Even if the ground pilot handled four aircraft, the cost saving would be in the dollar per hour per passenger range. Simple example:leftoftrack wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 6:44 pm if you're saying its cause of the cost of having the 1 pilot on board vs 2 and having 1 pilot on the ground. They would soon find a way to have that 1 pilot being the 2nd pilot on more then 1 airplane at a time. Thats where the real savings would be.
Let's say a Dash 8 FO makes $60,000 per year (average), 1000 per hours per year or $60 per flight hour divided by 75 pax (Q400) or about $0.80 per hour plus 25% for benefits or ~$1 per hour per passenger.
One ground pilot handling four flights would save 75 cents per passenger per hour.
Note: admittedly there are lots of approximations but that gives a rough idea the order of magnitude.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
Don’t forget that Delta removed one olive from every salad and saved $100,000 per year, or whatever.
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
- Location: Negative sequencial vortex
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
I'm afaid it makes me quite cynical when I see that it's (of course) airline CEOs that are the main driver towards this. There is simply no rational safety-case to be made in favour of this arrangement.
I just think it would be a really, really boring job. All the reasons I ever wanted to be an aviator are being distilled out of flying. Obviously I don't expect this to be a consideration for anyone who is trying to make money with a fleet of aeroplanes, but flying was supposed to be fun. By the time you get to the point that an airliner is flying single-pilot with some rampie/pilot-in-waiting/super-dispatcher watching you all the time and doing stuff that you can't see or really care about, basically on autopilot all the time, for me I would be out. It's no life for a thinking man. By the time you've made airline flying just about as routine and free from anything interesting or surprising happening as being a subway-train driver, then subway-train drivers are going to be good candidates for this job. Ambitious, well-rounded people will not be applying to the airlines. They'll ultimately be saving money not because of the reduction in crew, but because of the reduced expectations of the drones they'll get away with hiring for such an unambitious, dreary job. Because you'd have to increase my pay by at least the salary of a first officer to entice me to waste my soul on such a crappy situation. It's not for me, that's for sure.I'll fly an Otter on the coast. Single-pilot.
I just think it would be a really, really boring job. All the reasons I ever wanted to be an aviator are being distilled out of flying. Obviously I don't expect this to be a consideration for anyone who is trying to make money with a fleet of aeroplanes, but flying was supposed to be fun. By the time you get to the point that an airliner is flying single-pilot with some rampie/pilot-in-waiting/super-dispatcher watching you all the time and doing stuff that you can't see or really care about, basically on autopilot all the time, for me I would be out. It's no life for a thinking man. By the time you've made airline flying just about as routine and free from anything interesting or surprising happening as being a subway-train driver, then subway-train drivers are going to be good candidates for this job. Ambitious, well-rounded people will not be applying to the airlines. They'll ultimately be saving money not because of the reduction in crew, but because of the reduced expectations of the drones they'll get away with hiring for such an unambitious, dreary job. Because you'd have to increase my pay by at least the salary of a first officer to entice me to waste my soul on such a crappy situation. It's not for me, that's for sure.I'll fly an Otter on the coast. Single-pilot.
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:46 pm
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
Its already.....AP on at 1000', off at 500-200'. Just saying. We keep having new innovations at work......because flying is so much work!Meatservo wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 5:56 am I'm afaid it makes me quite cynical when I see that it's (of course) airline CEOs that are the main driver towards this. There is simply no rational safety-case to be made in favour of this arrangement.
I just think it would be a really, really boring job. All the reasons I ever wanted to be an aviator are being distilled out of flying. Obviously I don't expect this to be a consideration for anyone who is trying to make money with a fleet of aeroplanes, but flying was supposed to be fun. By the time you get to the point that an airliner is flying single-pilot with some rampie/pilot-in-waiting/super-dispatcher watching you all the time and doing stuff that you can't see or really care about, basically on autopilot all the time, for me I would be out. It's no life for a thinking man. By the time you've made airline flying just about as routine and free from anything interesting or surprising happening as being a subway-train driver, then subway-train drivers are going to be good candidates for this job. Ambitious, well-rounded people will not be applying to the airlines. They'll ultimately be saving money not because of the reduction in crew, but because of the reduced expectations of the drones they'll get away with hiring for such an unambitious, dreary job. Because you'd have to increase my pay by at least the salary of a first officer to entice me to waste my soul on such a crappy situation. It's not for me, that's for sure.I'll fly an Otter on the coast. Single-pilot.
I'm just waiting for the big green button. Auto taxi, auto t/o, autoland, auto taxi-in. ATC heading and altitude clearances? Why do they have to call me, i have to respond, then i have to turn a knob. ATC should just do it.
Entering a flight plan....company doesn't even use pre-programmed co-routes in the FMS. That should be ACARS loaded when i get on board. Fuel checks should be automatically submitted on the IPAD. Why do i have to enter the time and fuel at TOC ?
I should just get push notifications on the IPAD when the green button is ready to be pressed. Or it should just illuminate.
It should be like a Monorail driver !
Sure, I'll sit there and monitor, because I'll probably see 3-5 engine failures in a 705 aircraft in my career. And yes, in case ATC wants to turn us into a cell. I'll pause GOT and say, sorry, that's not the best heading.
But, I want it to be just ONE press per sector. Strictly a monitoring role.
Homer J.
aka HoJu
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:46 pm
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
That's a 75 % savings !!!!! That's astronomical !L39Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 8:27 pmEven if the ground pilot handled four aircraft, the cost saving would be in the dollar per hour per passenger range. Simple example:leftoftrack wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 6:44 pm if you're saying its cause of the cost of having the 1 pilot on board vs 2 and having 1 pilot on the ground. They would soon find a way to have that 1 pilot being the 2nd pilot on more then 1 airplane at a time. Thats where the real savings would be.
Let's say a Dash 8 FO makes $60,000 per year (average), 1000 per hours per year or $60 per flight hour divided by 75 pax (Q400) or about $0.80 per hour plus 25% for benefits or ~$1 per hour per passenger.
One ground pilot handling four flights would save 75 cents per passenger per hour.
Note: admittedly there are lots of approximations but that gives a rough idea the order of magnitude.
It's ONLY 75cents / pax / hour.............with that reasoning.......FOs should make $120,000.....its only 100 cents more/ pax / hour.
IDK.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
Autoland is not available on all airplanes nor to all runways. Why is that?doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 1:53 pmI agree.yycflyguy wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:41 amOr when they need to go pee
or when they have a knife and fork in their hands
or when they become incapacitated
or when they are screwing up
or when there are multiple MELs and are expected to fly through the night with no AP AT for 11 hours
or in an emergency, who is going to run the checklist, who will fly
Pure rubbish to think that single pilot airliners will happen in my lifetime. Uber taxis can't even figure out land automation without weather dynamics and more complicated systems that planes have.
Next there will be autoland !
Whoever heard of such a thing....a plane landing itself.
Maybe in 2077
What's next....watches like inspector gadget?
Or large video telephones in the kitchen at home where you can ACTUALLY see a person's face as you talk to them. Way too futuristic for me!
And what's the potential liability loss when your telephone or watch fails compared to an aircraft with 100s of lives?
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:46 pm
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
If pilot incapacitation were not a factor, single pilot airliners could happen tomorrow.yycflyguy wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 8:20 amAutoland is not available on all airplanes nor to all runways. Why is that?doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 1:53 pmI agree.yycflyguy wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:41 am
Or when they need to go pee
or when they have a knife and fork in their hands
or when they become incapacitated
or when they are screwing up
or when there are multiple MELs and are expected to fly through the night with no AP AT for 11 hours
or in an emergency, who is going to run the checklist, who will fly
Pure rubbish to think that single pilot airliners will happen in my lifetime. Uber taxis can't even figure out land automation without weather dynamics and more complicated systems that planes have.
Next there will be autoland !
Whoever heard of such a thing....a plane landing itself.
Maybe in 2077
What's next....watches like inspector gadget?
Or large video telephones in the kitchen at home where you can ACTUALLY see a person's face as you talk to them. Way too futuristic for me!
And what's the potential liability loss when your telephone or watch fails compared to an aircraft with 100s of lives?
Autoland is on most airliners. And it should be available to all runways. Is it that great a stretch of current technology to have LPV Cat 2s ?
But those 2 points are moot to the discussion of SINGLE pilot.
Hey, on the bright side, when we go single pilot,
It''ll be like the heydays of the Golden Age of aviation, where its a miracle you land alive after every flight.
Kids coming off the aircraft will be asking for your autograph and such!
Adults will be cheerfully thanking you after every flight !
You'll be a star !
Even more so, if there is an engine fire, and you pull an illuminated T-handle. 'Cause the average airline pilot sees 5-7 engine fires and failure in his career. And 1/2 of those happen right at V1
Last edited by doiwannabeapilot on Thu May 23, 2019 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:46 pm
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
I would like to know what airline has you on an 11 hour flight with no AP ? That's a lot of fuel burned below RVSM.doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:03 amIf pilot incapacitation were not a factor, single pilot airliners could happen tomorrow.yycflyguy wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 8:20 amAutoland is not available on all airplanes nor to all runways. Why is that?doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 1:53 pm
I agree.
Next there will be autoland !
Whoever heard of such a thing....a plane landing itself.
Maybe in 2077
What's next....watches like inspector gadget?
Or large video telephones in the kitchen at home where you can ACTUALLY see a person's face as you talk to them. Way too futuristic for me!
And what's the potential liability loss when your telephone or watch fails compared to an aircraft with 100s of lives?
Autoland is on most airliners. And it should be available to all runways. Is it that great a stretch of current technology to have LPV Cat 2s ?
But those 2 points are moot to the discussion of SINGLE pilot.
Hey, on the bright side, when we go single pilot,
It''ll be like the heydays of the Golden Age of aviation, where its a miracle you land alive after every flight.
Kids coming off the aircraft will be asking for your autograph and such!
Adults will be cheerfully thanking you after every flight !
You'll be a star !
Even more so, if there is an engine fire, and you pull an illuminated T-handle.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
Sure,doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:05 amI would like to know what airline has you on an 11 hour flight with no AP ? That's a lot of fuel burned below RVSM.doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:03 amIf pilot incapacitation were not a factor, single pilot airliners could happen tomorrow.
Autoland is on most airliners. And it should be available to all runways. Is it that great a stretch of current technology to have LPV Cat 2s ?
But those 2 points are moot to the discussion of SINGLE pilot.
Hey, on the bright side, when we go single pilot,
It''ll be like the heydays of the Golden Age of aviation, where its a miracle you land alive after every flight.
Kids coming off the aircraft will be asking for your autograph and such!
Adults will be cheerfully thanking you after every flight !
You'll be a star !
Even more so, if there is an engine fire, and you pull an illuminated T-handle.
YYZ - GRU - YYZ, YYZ-SCL-YYZ, YYZ-GIG-YYZ. Been der dun dat with no AT.
So my points are very germane to the discuss of single pilot. You admitted that not all airliners are auto-land capable and you admitted that not all runways are suitable for auto-lands so single pilot ops are nowhere in the immediate future.
There is much more to consider than pilot incapacitation. Physiology, competency, crew effort, technology, apprenticeship.... it's a long list why there are minimum 2 pilots.
Anyone that thinks that flying single pilot airliners is comparable to watches or telephones doesn't understand liability and airlines operated on risk mitigation. I've watched some Captains that need babysitting, some FOs too. I've also had my obvious mistakes/errors pointed out. 4 eyes, 4 ears is an absolute minimum.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
With increased public acceptance and adoption of robotics and automated systems, I envision a future of single-pilot jet airliner flights. There are several single-pilot IFR capable multi-engine (Cessna 402) type scheduled flights in the U.S.A. Cape Air comes to mind. They have been operating for several decades, and most passengers don't seem to mind flying in IFR conditions piloted by a lone pilot in a twin-engine piston propeller aircraft doing a non-precision approach. The leap to single-pilot jet airliner flights doesn't seem that far.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
It's the future of UUULCC... Choose a fare that has 2 pilots and a meal or get the 1/2 price fare with 1 pilot and 1 cookie.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
yycflyguy is spot on and this notion of aircraft landing themselves for a single pilot or pilotless aircraft is equally applicable. All of the futurists dream of aircraft being able to do this however they are not aviation experts and do not understand the nuances as well as the nitty gritty technical issues involved in pilotless aircraft and autoland/autotakeoff.yycflyguy wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 12:41 pm Sure,
YYZ - GRU - YYZ, YYZ-SCL-YYZ, YYZ-GIG-YYZ. Been der dun dat with no AT.
So my points are very germane to the discuss of single pilot. You admitted that not all airliners are auto-land capable and you admitted that not all runways are suitable for auto-lands so single pilot ops are nowhere in the immediate future.
There is much more to consider than pilot incapacitation. Physiology, competency, crew effort, technology, apprenticeship.... it's a long list why there are minimum 2 pilots.
Anyone that thinks that flying single pilot airliners is comparable to watches or telephones doesn't understand liability and airlines operated on risk mitigation. I've watched some Captains that need babysitting, some FOs too. I've also had my obvious mistakes/errors pointed out. 4 eyes, 4 ears is an absolute minimum.
First, unless ICAO is willing to lower the standard for autolanding, big, big hurdles are present for autolanding from an airport/infrastructure perspective.
Runways that support autolands, Category III runways, have many unique characteristics that are not easily attained or perhaps are impossible to attain. The challenges include:
- For a single pilot operation, the runway would need the full Category III lighting system, a very expensive proposition. May not required for a pilotless operation.
- A Category III Instrument Landing System (ILS) is required complete with backup power (usually a diesel generator). In today's CAT III state, when it is operation, the main power supply is the back up power system with the local utility electrical system serving as the backup. In a single pilot/pilotless system, the backup would be operating continuously.
- It is unlikely that satellite-based navigation, including Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS), will ever achieve the necessary technical requirements of Category III; they have been working on it for 25 years now and are still nowhere close. That is, unless ICAO reduces the safety margins and changes the standards.
- The environment near the runway would need to meet the runway certification standard, i.e. be clear of manmade and natural obstacles. Most runways don't even come close to meeting this standard
- The approach area also has to meet certain terrain standards as the radar altimeter is used to judge the flare and pertubations in the terrain are not allowed.
Very, very few runways today are Category III capable because of these significant issues, both physical limitation that may be impossible to mitigate as well as the massive financial cost. In this fantasy world of single pilot/pilotless aircraft, will airports in Red Deer, Regina, Brandon, Kenora, Wawa, Stratford, Victoriaville, Fredericton, etc invest tens of millions of dollars to have a Category III landing system and runway for all of their runways? Not a chance.
Let's talk about the aircraft systems. Triple redundant autopilots, inertial reference systems, radar altimeters, triple redundant power systems, etc. Very few modern airliners have that capability - yes, most of the new Boeings and Airbus's do but how about the Bombardier, Embraer and other fleets of smaller aircraft with large fleets?
The visionaries, many of whom have no aviation background whatsoever, love to pontificate about machines replacing humans however when one considers the issues involved, it is complex, expensive and, in many cases, physically impossible to achieve. How many auto driven Tesla's have had fatal accidents now? Three, in what is a minuscule fleet.
Pilots of the world, relax, your services will be required for a long, long time.
- Jack Klumpus
- Rank 5
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:46 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
AP is required for RVSM, whereas A/THR is not. The above question was with regards to AP no?doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:05 amSure,doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:03 am
I would like to know what airline has you on an 11 hour flight with no AP ? That's a lot of fuel burned below RVSM.
YYZ - GRU - YYZ, YYZ-SCL-YYZ, YYZ-GIG-YYZ. Been der dun dat with no AT.
When I retire, I’ll miss the clowns, not the circus.
Re: Future 797 single pilot?
No, the discussion is about the need for multiple crew when automation is not available on a 10 or 11 hour flight. While AP is required for RVSM, AT is not. Flying through the night with no AT in light - moderate turbulence around ITCZ cells requires constant manipulation of the thrust and it was necessary to "pass control" periodically. It is just one example of when I've experienced the need for multiple crew.Jack Klumpus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:24 pmAP is required for RVSM, whereas A/THR is not. The above question was with regards to AP no?doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:05 amSure,doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:03 am
I would like to know what airline has you on an 11 hour flight with no AP ? That's a lot of fuel burned below RVSM.
YYZ - GRU - YYZ, YYZ-SCL-YYZ, YYZ-GIG-YYZ. Been der dun dat with no AT.