Embraer reveals vision for single-pilot airliners

[goldeneagle]

You folks are all missing the big picture, entirely. First off, what the manufacturer is doing has nothing to do with how any given airline chooses to operate the aircraft, it's all about meeting various certification requirements. The manufacturers intend to certify the aircraft for single pilot operations. That means everything can be managed from one seat, and they will do certification flight testing for a single pilot. But, that doesn't mean it'll be like a 40 year old navajo operating single pilot, where pilot incapacitation means immediate and certain loss of control. A modern new airliner of transport category will be configured so the 'single pilot' is the 'backup system'. The aircraft will be quite capable of navigating from point a to point b, and executing an autoland at the other end, all by itself, without the help of a pilot.

So from the certification perspective, the human pilot will be the 'backup system'. Once that's clear, then on the subject of incapacitation, it becomes simple statistics, and the question wont be 'what is the probability of pilot incapacitation', it will be 'what is the probability of pilot incapacitation simultaneous with aircraft systems failures'. Whole different question, with whole new answers, and it's going to catch the holier than thou 'think they are god' pilots community totally blindsided, because they never did 'get it' as to the direction this is all moving.

The aircraft will still be constructed with two pilot seats up front, but will be fully capable of, and certified for, operation by one pilot. There will probably be significant requirements in the form of MEL items that must be adhered to for single pilot operations with a load of passengers in the back.

And at that point, the manufacturer will have done it's part, and the rest of the issue will get punted down to the airlines, and it'll be up to them to figure out if / how they will utilize the capability. Some will almost certainly look carefully at the potential to operate single pilot. Others will take a page from the book of many navajo operators, and realize very quickly, maintaining automated systems to the level required will be far more expensive than putting slave labour into the second seat. Since the second pilot isn't a 'requirement by law' anymore, it'll almost certainly result in a huge pay reduction for that seat, and significantly relaxed licensing requirements. The new 'multi crew' license, with an in house ppc, more than adaquate to sit in the second seat for an aircraft certified to be flown by one pilot. Ring any bells ? It's cheaper to put a slave into the right seat of a navajo than it is to try keep that old junk autopilot running.

As for the unions, how will they react. I dont see them reacting any differently than they did when the subject of eliminating the third seat from the plane came up. The unions are always top heavy with the 'senior' folks who will vote to protect the 'captain' position, and if necessary, they will happily sacrifice the right seat on the way. History shows this to be the case, they accepted the demise of the flight engineer seat, then they accepted the two tier pay systems, and have recently gone thru another round of accepting the equivalent of two tier pay systems. If you are new to the airline world, and expect the unions to watch out for your future, you better go read some history, and it contains a reality check for you. Airline pilot unions are all about protecting the status quo for the senior folks, and they have a history of offering up the junior folks as sacrificial lambs to protect the senior positions. And other pending changes to licensing rules fit this 'big picture' plan perfectly. right seats will get populated by folks holding a 'multi crew' license, and the unions will happily make a big distinction between the license grades, and quite possibly exclude multi-crew license holders from the airline pilots union ranks, instead delegating them to the ranks of 'cabin crew', especially if they hold the 'inferior' license, and are sitting in a 'not really required by law' seat.

It is also worth asking, how many crew seats will there be on the 747-8 series ? For those that can remember back to the days when the earlier 7x7 series were suggested to be two pilot airplanes, it caused quite a stir, and the unions drew a line in the sand at 3 engines. Two engine airplanes, they would accept two crew, even for long haul etc, but, with 3 or more engines, that would need 3 crew up front. Time passes, folks retire, and the wind seems to have blown over that line in the sand, and it's vanished. If you want to find the third seat today, gotta look in the museum, or into the ranks of tired old freighters. They certainly dont build them with that seat anymore.

The single pilot airplane is coming, that's a steam roller that is unstoppable. The part that's going to be the most difficult for pilots to stomach, is when they come to the realization, the crew seat up front is a 'backup system', not the primary system.

[iflyforpie]

You folks are all missing the big picture, entirely.

Flight crew are too cheap, passengers are too nervous, automated flight operations are too cumbersome (ie CAT III Autoland), and the pilot shortage is too mythical (as are your certification standards ) for this to ever happen.

That is the big picture....

[GTODD]

Goldeneagle, you can’t honestly expect us to read all that? Could you try summarizing in say 200 words or less?

[Mihai]

Goldeneagle, you can’t honestly expect us to read all that? Could you try summarizing in say 200 words or less?

He wanted us to get the BIG picture ... But iflyforpie summaried it pretty well I think.

[2R]

Boeing had a similar idea years ago.
The new super-automated aircraft flight deck was to be crewed by one Pilot and a Dog .
The modern super duper fandabaddossi aircraft was fully automated from pushback to pull up ,it left only one duty left for the pilot.That of feeding the dog at specific times.
And the dogs only duty was to bite the Pilot if he touched anything

[complexintentions]

Some holes in your theorizing big enough to drive trucks through Goldeneagle. Assuming your premise that they're in the process of certifying transport-category aircraft for single -pilot ops. Which would be a complicated but straightforward engineering process, albeit a very expensive certification process, if you use even the simplest mod as an example.

But even with that weak assumption, and the probability that the likelihood of incapacitation of the single pilot is unlikely, there would still have to be systems in place to provide for that eventuality. And the automated systems as they are currently would NOT provide the level of redundancy you describe. Certifying the current technology for single-pilot operations does not mean the present technology particularly as it applies to full autoland would be capable of taking over and conducting a descent, approach, autoland, and taxi in if the single pilot keels over in cruise. So until they design the systems to be COMPLETELY autonomous, which may be in the next generation of aircraft, who knows, we're back to having another meat-sack around just in case. Cheaper to have him on board than behind the world's most expensive R/C kit. And you're just gonna have him sitting in a seat in First in case the skipper packs it in, why not put him up in the flight deck where he can be useful? And around it goes.

Pilots now already ARE the "backup" system, and have been for many years. It is safer to be once removed from the handling of the actual machine and monitoring the technology while it does what it does best: the mindless, repetitive tasks. But as long as humans continue to have the annoying propensity to die at inopportune times, or there is even a chance of that happening, the minimum amount of humans required for redundancy will remain at two. The comparison of the reduction from three pilots to two is irrelevant - an aircraft will fly quite nicely with one engine, not so much on none...

[Siddley Hawker]

I do hope this wasn't an operational test of the system.

[ktcanuck]

DATE:07/07/10
SOURCE:Flight International
Thales outlines thinking on single-crew cockpits
By Andrew Doyle

Thales Aerospace has followed Embraer in setting out its thinking on the possible introduction of single-crew capable airliners, as part of its "Cockpit 3.0" studies aimed at the 2030 timeframe.

"Embraer says that they want to think about an aircraft that can be flown with a single pilot. It's very interesting," says Joseph Huysseune, Thales Aerospace innovation director for commercial aircraft.

"Of course the convenient answer is to say 'forget it, it will never happen', and certainly the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 replacements will have two crew in the cockpit," says Huysseune. "But looking far to the horizon, we have clever ideas to go in that direction. As an equipment and systems supplier we have got to be ready when it comes, and to be proactive in proposing solutions."

He add: "We are very open minded and we don't want to neglect any track that can help us to be the first to propose innovative solutions."

The Cockpit 3.0 project is aimed at reducing crew workload, complexity and scope for human error, as well as the physical size of the cockpit to maximise payload volume. This, Thales believes, will deliver by 2030 aircraft cockpits that are safer, simpler, easier to train for, smaller and single-crew capable.

"Maybe we can reduce the workload so that one of the crew can focus on the piloting, and the other could perform other tasks, like for example preparing for the next flight or handling the catering on the ground," says Denis Bonnet, head of cockpit safety and human engineering.

"We are considering a lot of scenarios," he says. "What can we do with the resources we would save by having the single pilot? Is the second pilot necessarily on the aircraft, or could they be on the ground?" he says.

Many issues remain to be resolved, including the questions of how safety could be degraded by not having a second pilot in the cockpit to question the actions of the first, what would happen if the single pilot became incapacitated, and how to equip trainee pilots with the skills required to captain an aircraft.

"The answer may not be the same for all sectors," says Gil Michielin, vice-president and general manager, commercial aircraft solutions. "For instance, the one-pilot crew for freight transport might happen earlier than for passenger transport," he says. "Obviously we have a say, but in the end the market will decide."

[Ireton]

Single pilot airliners, nice. While we're at it, is there any chance ATC will have ceased using antiquated HF radio for oceanic communication by 2020?

[172PIC]

Single pilot I can see for RJ's etc., though two pilots are always safer than one, well should be at least.

As for pilotless airliners it's been talked about for a long time, doubt it will happen. Computers make mistakes, people make mistakes, together we make a lot less, should just stay that way.

Note magazine cover from 1963...

[Mr. North]

When pilot-less airliners take to the skies you can think back to today and thank the military industrial complex.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le1637904/

The British military has unveiled a new unmanned attack aircraft designed to use artificial intelligence to fly itself halfway around the world and select enemy targets on its own, highlighting fears that such military automation will one day lead to weapons that decide when to shoot as well.

The Taranis prototype, a stealthy jet-powered autonomous flying robot weapon system, is billed by the British government and defence contractor BAE Systems as the first of its kind.

Unlike most other unmanned aerial vehicles, which are controlled by humans on the ground and fly in a limited area in support of ground troops, Taranis could be programmed to fly itself between continents to reach enemy territory.

“It could then carry out intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activity. … It's a combat aircraft with weapons so it could strike with precision weapons,” said Squadron Leader Bruno Wood, the Ministry of Defence spokesman for the Taranis project.

He added that humans would “absolutely” be in control of deciding when to fire any weapons system. “That's something you would never erase the human element from.”

The automation of weapons systems is a growing military trend, with the U.S. Army aiming to automate 30 per cent of its ground vehicles by 2015.

Militaries are spending large amounts of money to develop robots that can locate targets and “destroy them without human intervention,” says Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, raising the prospect of a scenario similar to that portrayed in the Terminator series of movies, in which robots are self-aware enough to start killing humans.

“The ethical problem is that no autonomous robots or artificial intelligence systems have the necessary skills to discriminate between combatants and innocents,” Prof. Sharkey wrote in an article on autonomous robot weapons in 2008.

In any event, the prospect of aerial vehicles deciding on their own when to shoot at a target is at least a decade off, said Elizabeth Quintana, an expert on unmanned aerial vehicles at the Royal United Services Institute, a think tank. She suggested that the Taranis project could be a way to reduce military budgets. “If you can eliminate two or three people, then it helps in terms of costs,” she said.

Named after the Celtic god of thunder, the Taranis concept plane took four years to build at a cost of £143-million. It's shaped like a V and has an air intake for its jet engine where the pilot would normally sit. Its stealth technology will help it avoid detection on enemy radars and its two internal bomb bays will allow it to carry a range of weapons.

Its maiden flight is expected to take place in 2011.

Squadron Leader Wood said that Taranis may not go into production, but it will be used to test technology that would be used by future unmanned combat air vehicles with the same capabilities.

Special to The Globe and Mail

[Chris]

Incident: Jazz DH8C near Montreal on Jul 20th 2010, captain incapacitated
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Jul 20th 2010 20:14Z, last updated Tuesday, Jul 20th 2010 20:14Z

An Air Canada Jazz de Havilland Dash 8-300, registration C-GNON performing flight QK-8788 from Montreal,QC to Saint John,NB (Canada) with 32 people on board, was about 80nm east of Montreal when the first officer radioed the captain had fainted. The first officer returned to Montreal, where the airplane landed safely about 25 minutes later. The captain had recovered as much that he was able to walk off the airplane, he was subsequently taken to a hospital.

The airplane departed again with both flight crew replaced and reached Saint John with a delay of 2.5 hours.

-------------------
Incident: Continental B752 near Moncton on Jul 16th 2010, pilot incapacitation
By Simon Hradecky, created Monday, Jul 19th 2010 21:22Z, last updated Monday, Jul 19th 2010 21:22Z

A Continental Airlines Boeing 757-200, registration N17139 performing flight CO-112 from Newark,NJ (USA) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), was enroute at FL350 about 90nm northeast of Moncton,NB (Canada) when air traffic control was informed about the pilot suffering from chest pain. The crew requested to divert to Boston and was cleared to FL320 and direct Boston. The airplane landed safely in Boston about 70 minutes later.

The aircraft reached London with a delay of 4:45 hours.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/COA1 ... /KEWR/EGLL

[xsbank]

So far, the rules don't allow it. That will change.

If pilots cause 'most' of the accidents, then eliminating pilots will reduce the accident rate.

Single engine IFR seems to be accepted, the incidence of engine failure must, by deduction, be equal than or better than the rate of pilot failure. Put on multiple engines and remove the pilot, safer ops.

There will be no pilots on board next-gen aircraft, not one. You can have one sim-tech or simulator pilot monitoring numerous flights - if one gets into trouble, it can be helped by the overseers.

[Jaques Strappe]

I find it absolutely Hilarious that Embraer of all companies has this vision.

EMBRAER stands for Every Mechanical Breakdown Requires Another Electrical Reset.

I spent five years flying the 190 and I certainly would not trust Embraer with anything that didn't have two pilots and a team of engineers closely monitoring it.

[Mr. North]

One step closer...

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... rless-your

[Siddley Hawker]

Could you try summarizing in say 200 words or less?

Wake me up when you get it down to 140 characters or less.

[Sulako]

"Hmm, that thunderstorm up ahead looks pretty nasty on the screen. Oh wait, I'm not actually on board, I'll give 'er a go".

//worst nightmare flying commercial

[trey kule]

You know, everyone talks about computer error. Odd that no one wants to talk about pilot error.
The fact is computer or remotely controlled aircraft can make a whole bunch of errors..Kill people, and still be more statistically safe than a pilot controlled aircraft. Pilot error is the main cause of most accidents.
UAVs have been around since the 1960s! Remotely controlled aircraft are being flown daily and the FAA is actually drafting regulations to include them in the airspace.

The "pilot" as we think of them today will be different. They will essentially be a systems monitor.
Thatsupposedly glorious view from the front will be covered over...cheaper pressure vessel..They have been working for years on camera installations to do anway with the cockpit.

aux bat, your post made me realize that there are many posters on here who really dont have an understanding of INS on aircraft today, or the capabalities of modern flight management systems.

A large aircraft has many many crews flying it...not just one crew.The annual flight crew cost for a large airplane is in the millions.
It will happen, and I dont see it that far in the future...It is ego talking when people say the pax will not stand for one pilot in the cockpit..If it means a $10 saving on a cross ocean flight, people will jump all over it...

There are limits to human performance, and technology is now approaching the point where its weaknesses are less than the human performance weakness..
I expect what we will see shortly is the cruise pilot(s) replaced on long flights.
First by a remote pilots and eventually by an onboard system.

[complexintentions]

"Pilot error" is a catchall term that is constantly misused to explain all sorts of things in the most simplistic terms. To say that it is the "main cause" of most accidents is a bit of a statistical shell game, because it's very rare that a major accident happened due to one critical error of a pilot. There are almost ALWAYS a host of complex, interacting circumstances that lead to an accident.

My point? "Pilot error" is simply another term for "human error". Unless I'm mistaken, these wondrous unmanned airliners will be designed, engineered, and still operated at arm's length, by humans. In other words, it will simply shift the wording in the accident reports from "pilot error" to "operator error". This is progress how?

The pilot (at least in my field) is already essentially a systems monitor. So that's hardly a new development. But moving one or both of them to the ground, to be replaced by a layer of technology AND another human, is cheaper how? I've seen just how ruthless airliner management is. If it was viable it would already be in place. I've said it before, the obstacle to having unmanned flight is hardly technological, it's financial. I'm not saying it won't ever come, but it will have to have some massive financial benefit that offsets the equally massive R&D and infrastructure investment that would be required. And I think the availability of cheap carbon-based fuels is far more of a threat to piloting than studies that prove what we've known for 60 years, that airplanes can be flown by remote control.

As an aside, the casual dismissal of the importance of GPS to an INS system is incorrect. While INS is extremely accurate by relative standards, there is no way you would meet RNP navigation requirements without the updating, which on many routes we fly now is ONLY via GPS. So without GPS you don't just continue merrily on your way, no problem. You have big problems if you're in the same airspace with a bunch of other RNP aircraft, because the separation minima just went backwards by about 40 years.

[Rockie]

“computer-in-command”

“computer-in-command” means, in relation to an aircraft, the computer having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time;

I don't think so...

[iflyforpie]

But moving one or both of them to the ground, to be replaced by a layer of technology AND another human, is cheaper how?

There's lots of ways it could be cheaper. The new 'pilots' probably wouldn't have to be as well trained as most of the aircraft would be automated. They probably wouldn't fall under ALPA or other unions, reducing costs to legacy and national carriers. Plus, since they would be 'remote', they could be anywhere.... a call center in Mumbai perhaps.

Technology.. like any capital or infrastructure.. is a one-time expenditure. Labour on the other hand is continuous and it always gets more expensive as time goes on. At a certain point.. the two paths cross and it makes more sense to invest in technology rather than labour. It's been that way ever since the Industrial Revolution and the resistance against such advancements has been around since Ned Ludd.

Personally, I don't think we will see it any time soon, but the time will come eventually.

[Sidebar]

The "pilot" as we think of them today will be different. They will essentially be a systems monitor.

Sorry to surprise you, but today's transport jet "pilot" is already more of a systems monitor than a pilot. Pilot flies the aircraft during takeoff, engages the computer controlled autopilot at 400', and clicks it off at 200' on final approach. This equates to about two minutes of actual hands on flying per flight, with the rest of the flight devoted to monitoring systems.

[FICU]

What F/A in their right mind would work a flight with no pilots on board?

Good luck turning this into a reality!

[tbaylx]

But moving one or both of them to the ground, to be replaced by a layer of technology AND another human, is cheaper how?

There's lots of ways it could be cheaper. The new 'pilots' probably wouldn't have to be as well trained as most of the aircraft would be automated. They probably wouldn't fall under ALPA or other unions, reducing costs to legacy and national carriers. Plus, since they would be 'remote', they could be anywhere.... a call center in Mumbai perhaps.

Technology.. like any capital or infrastructure.. is a one-time expenditure. Labour on the other hand is continuous and it always gets more expensive as time goes on. At a certain point.. the two paths cross and it makes more sense to invest in technology rather than labour. It's been that way ever since the Industrial Revolution and the resistance against such advancements has been around since Ned Ludd.

Personally, I don't think we will see it any time soon, but the time will come eventually.

Oh great! An airliner piloted by a call center in Mumbai..what could possibly go wrong with that....only?

[Ref Plus 10]

The "pilot" as we think of them today will be different. They will essentially be a systems monitor.

This equates to about two minutes of actual hands on flying per flight, with the rest of the flight devoted to monitoring systems.

While I agree that today's airline pilot is essentially a systems monitor, and yes, MOST of the basic functions of the pilot can be done from a remote facility, there are a few things that have been cooking my noodle about this. Firstly, how many delays would not having a pilot on board cause? I'm thinking primarily in the area of visual approaches/separation...Now I know, they'll say "but there's highly sophisticated radar for picking up traffic, and will vector accordingly"; I don't know about you, but flying a VFR aircraft around an unmanned aircraft just doesn't give me the warm fuzzy feeling I like to have before takeoff.

Sure I understand that these aircraft will probably be able to monitor the systems of the "similar" aircraft nearby, but what about Joe Blow in his 172 bombing in for coffee? Or is GA a thing of the past (as the EU is apparently trying to make reality)? My biggest beef with getting rid of pilots in airliners (aside from doing in my career), is that it takes out the common sense and airmanship that we've all (hopefully) had beaten and bred in to our systems, and in my opinion, though it may create a safer IFR environment, does not foster a positive relationship with the thousands of OTHER aircraft that operate on a daily basis.

End opinion.

Ref