Industry standard

[BadgerGirl]

In your opinion, can you please tell me for how long the dual-pilot system has been the industry standard?
I am not intending to start a debate on the merits of two over one, or one instead of two.

For instance, has it been industry standard for five years? Ten years? Fifteen? Twenty?

If you need a more narrow definition of the sub-industry, please think air ambulance.

Thank you all for your help! You rock!

Sheri

[D5GRVTY]

Ever since three became phased out; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_engineer

When in history did we move from one pilot to two, well that was pretty early on in aviation history.

[Beefitarian]

Like everything in aviation it's kind of complex. Example, if you look at large world war II bombers American units have dual controls, Canadian only one because there was only one pilot.

[BadgerGirl]

Think general public consumption.
Pretend someone has told me that dual pilot operations are "becoming" the industry standard.
Is that an accurate statement? Or is more accurate that dual pilot operations have already become the industry standard.
Now, what would someone reasonable counter with?
"They are industry standards, and have been for XX years or so, at least with respect to government operation of air ambulance."

Does that help clarify precisely what I need assistance with, if at all possible?

[D5GRVTY]

Are you asking about crew requirements for just medevac operations?

[BadgerGirl]

Yes.
I am asking you to approximate when you think using two pilots in air ambulance service became the industry standard, or most common practice.

[zed]

Your emphasis on "Air Ambulance" leads me to think that that is the focus of your question... If that's the case then your question may have less to do with "aviation" industry standards, and more to do with provincial contract requirements. Provinces run healthcare and control the issue of those contracts and what they define as being required, or may run their own Air ambulance service(not sure if there is a province doing that one though).

Or you might have to define what aircraft types you are talking about, because some may have a two crew requirements. Failing that, the normal regulations in CARs for air operators spells out what the requirements for pilots is under differents operating circumstances. Generally an air operator will only use one pilot unless he has to use two (contract requirements, aviation regulations, etc.) . Why pay two when one will do?

Unless you can provide a bit more clarity on what your talking about, you aren't likely to get any 'definitive' answer... And I would question calling anything being posted on AvCanada as being a accademically (I am assuming this) definitive. Cheers.

[just curious]

By the mid-Eighties, medevac in the NWT had become a two crew affair. In Ontario, perhaps a little earlier. While there are always hold-out operations, usually due to finances, this is pretty firmly entrenched, and usually a result of blood safety.

Literally, somebody had to die to make this the standard. In Ontario, it was likely the death of Ken Leishman, the "Flying Bandit", who died enroute Thunder Bay on a single pilot medevac. In the NWT, Martin Hartwell was likely the raison d'etre for two-crew medevac ops. Both fatal accidents occurred as CRM was in it's infancy.

Concurrent with these as policy-shaping accidents, the implementation of the CARs in the early nineties listed on the operations specifications for most ops as to whether their aircraft were operated 2 crew or single-crew. A chat with a TC BCA inspector could likely yield the info as to whether the majority of 703 or 704 OC's in a region were two-crew.

Personally, I can't recall having flown single pilot for 25 years. Don't miss it much either.

[CID]

The number of crew members required is driven by regulation and contract. In each case, a risk assessment is typically used to determine the minimum crew

If the type certificate allows for single pilot operation in a specific aircraft, that allowance may be overridden by other factors. For example, if you are using a Piper Navajo for medevac operations on behalf of a contractor like the provincial government, they may wish to mitigate risks to dispatch by having a second pilot. What if they autopilot becomes serviceableness enroute to pick up the patient? The aircraft would not be able to legally transport the patient in IMC if there was only one pilot.

Another consideration as one other poster alluded to, CRM. Studies and techniques have advanced considerably. Risk assessment has found it's way into the flight planning office. The safety of medevac flights and similar stressful operations benefit greatly from a second crew member.

[Hedley]

similar stressful operations benefit greatly from a second crew member

That's why the A-10, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-117A, F-22 and JSF were all designed two-crew.

In the following video, we can see the splendid CRM displayed by the two crew
at the cash register, in the hectic, high pressure fast-paced fast-food environment.



You can see that "Captain Tommy" is the reason why two pilots are needed.

[BadgerGirl]

Helpful! Thank you!
So, it is likely fair to say that dual pilot has been the industry practice for nearly 20 years. In 1995, Manitoba legislated the two-pilot requirement, so I have that benchmark at my disposal as well.
I do not have to be precise, but approximate. (With this type of measurement)

Thank you.

By the mid-Eighties, medevac in the NWT had become a two crew affair. In Ontario, perhaps a little earlier. While there are always hold-out operations, usually due to finances, this is pretty firmly entrenched, and usually a result of blood safety.

Literally, somebody had to die to make this the standard. In Ontario, it was likely the death of Ken Leishman, the "Flying Bandit", who died enroute Thunder Bay on a single pilot medevac. In the NWT, Martin Hartwell was likely the raison d'etre for two-crew medevac ops. Both fatal accidents occurred as CRM was in it's infancy.

Concurrent with these as policy-shaping accidents, the implementation of the CARs in the early nineties listed on the operations specifications for most ops as to whether their aircraft were operated 2 crew or single-crew. A chat with a TC BCA inspector could likely yield the info as to whether the majority of 703 or 704 OC's in a region were two-crew.

Personally, I can't recall having flown single pilot for 25 years. Don't miss it much either.

[oldtimer]

A number of factors influence the decision of one or two pilots. Large airplanes, any airplane with a Max Take-off Weight greater than 12,500 lbs, require two pilots. "Small" airplanes, 12.500 lbs MTOW or less, (King air 200) only require one pilot.
Just like your car needs to be registered and have a licence plate, airplanes must also be registered, to either an individual or a company. Privately owned not for hire airplanes can be registered to an individual or a company. Commercial for hire airplanes are registered to a company, the airline. But the Meadow Lake King Air is owned by the Government of Saskatchewan which is neither an individual nor a company so they are registered as STATE aircraft, which is neither private nor commercial but they operate under CARS 604, for privately owned not for hire turbine powered, pressurized airplanes.
The King Air has very sophisticated navigation systems, Flight Management Systems and Flight Directors so the pilot workload is actually quite low. The machinery does most of the work. Just program the FMS and say GIDDY-UP.
I guess the Province has decided that one pilot is both efficient and safe so they say so in their Operations Manual.
Now the King Air 350 has a MTOW of 15,000 lbs but is designed to a program that keeps it in the small category, therefore it is also a single pilot airplane.
I have flown both the King Air 100, 200 and 350 single pilot and with two crew and IMHO, single pilot operations are safe, possible except into very high density airport like Los Angles during rush hour.

[Cat Driver]

Flight Management Systems and Flight Directors so the pilot workload is actually quite low. The machinery does most of the work. Just program the FMS and say GIDDY-UP.

Can you say woah and tell it to land itself on a snow covered runway?

[BadgerGirl]

Better yet, do they come equipped with a cowboy?

[rigpiggy]

Also, by TC's standards to fly SPIFR, you have to have either an F/O or a functioning autopilot. Most companies found it cheaper to pay a cojoe, than continually fix an old autopilot.

Single Pilot IFR Requirements

The standard for the operation of an aeroplane with passengers on board in IFR flight without a second-in-command is:

(1) the pilot shall have a minimum of 1000 hours of flight time which shall include, if the type to be flown is multi-engined, 100 hours on multi-engined aeroplanes. In addition, the pilot shall have 50 hours of simulated or actual flight in IMC, and a total of 50 hours flight time on the aeroplane type;

(2) the Pilot Proficiency Check shall be in the aeroplane type flown or if applicable in one of the types grouped for Pilot Proficiency Check renewals and shall include the following:

(a) knowledge of the auto-pilot operations and limitations;

(b) performance of normal and emergency procedures without assistance;

(c) passenger briefing with respect to emergency evacuation; and

(d) demonstration of the use of the auto-pilot during appropriate phases of flight;

(3) flight in pressurized aeroplanes shall be conducted at or below FL 250; and

(4) a pilot's single pilot proficiency, if still valid, is transferable between air operators which have an Air Operator Certificate authority to conduct such operations and utilize the same type and model of aeroplane.

[Geo]

Better yet, do they come equipped with a cowboy?

Yes, they're called "pilots". The only differences are the type of mount, and style of hat. :p

g

[BadgerGirl]

Best. Post. Ever.
+10

Better yet, do they come equipped with a cowboy?

Yes, they're called "pilots". The only differences are the type of mount, and style of hat. :p

g

[Beefitarian]

Better yet, do they come equipped with a cowboy?

Yes, they're called "pilots". The only differences are the type of mount, and style of hat. :p

g

Best. Post. Ever.
I award you 10 internets.

FYP

[oldtimer]

rigpiggy is talking commercial air service standards. This is a state owned airplane and therefore can operate as a private aircraft, however, the requirements are almost the same. The Maple Creek incident King Air is a 2007 model so I bet it has a Collins EFIS and a Universal FMS which is top drawer stuff, the same as I was used to in the King Air 350. Many operators feel it is safer to use the autopilot most of the time. When I was doing checkrides, I would mark down any pilot who tried to handbomb an ILS. The autopilot did a much better job. One procedure some guys used, albeit unapproved, was to have the autopilot fly the ILS to 50 ft, bring the power levers to idle and press go-around on the flight director, The airplane would land itself. disconnect the autopilot and yaw damper as soon as the wheels touched. Mind you, this was to a Cat 111 runway (CYVR). Now, on a non precision approach such as at small airports, there is no infastructure to support this type of operation. With a snow covered runway and flat light, you could have 10 pilots in the cockpit and it would not do any good because the pilot(s) cannot see the surface of the runway. If they went out with a leaf blower and blew off a strip down the centerline, that would make all the difference. I have been there and done that and I even bought the T shirt. In my opinon, the number of pilots in the cockpit had little or no bearing on the outcome. Single pilot operations are safe IF the pilots are properly trained and the airplane is properly equipped. Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia all use either contract or ad-hoc commercial air carriers for their air ambulance service, Saskatchewan uses government owned airplanes.

[Hedley]

With a snow covered runway and flat light, you could have 10 pilots in the cockpit and it would not do any good because the pilot(s) cannot see the surface of the runway

Really? Even with CRM?

the number of pilots in the cockpit had little or no bearing on the outcome

I think you're displaying an anti-authority attitude.

[Cat Driver]

So how do pilots land airplanes in flat light?

[OceansEdge]

Flight Management Systems and Flight Directors so the pilot workload is actually quite low. The machinery does most of the work. Just program the FMS and say GIDDY-UP.

They're great tools - no argument, but ANY computer is only as good as the data programmed into it

Air New Zealand Flight 901

(just to play devil's advocate...)

[Meatservo]

With a snow covered runway and flat light, you could have 10 pilots in the cockpit and it would not do any good because the pilot(s) cannot see the surface of the runway

Really? Even with CRM?

the number of pilots in the cockpit had little or no bearing on the outcome

I think you're displaying an anti-authority attitude.

That's where orange safety vests and SMS come in. You can do anything as long as you're safe. Or, I should say, you can get permission to do anything as long as you are "safe".

[oldtimer]

I do not think I am showing any sort of anti anything. All I am saying is that single pilot operations with a trained pilot in a well equipped airplane is safe. They are not in a high density traffic situation. I will bet this was the only airplane in the sky in southern Saskatchewan. A local said there was a skiff of snow that morning and it was overcast. Landing on a single runway covered with a skiff of snow in flat light conditions with snow covered terrain will obscure the runway and one main gear got too far off to the side of the runway. Regina can have the same problem. I shot the approach but missed because I couldn't spot the runway. Then an airplane took off and blew snow off the runway. No more problems. Shit happens.

[rigpiggy]

I would mark down any pilot who tried to handbomb an ILS. The autopilot did a much better job.

Really, I mean REALLY, REALLY

FFS, training/rides are meant to prove they can fly when the chips are down. I also have had AP's do weird shit at inopportune times. Yes 999/1000 times the AP does a better job.

But WTF I would say you are contributing to the decline of the profession. I can't begin to describe my feelings right now.