Single Pilot Airliners?

[Rockie]

All those runways without an expensive ILS beam will be able to be autolanded through a single area augmentation antenna and a GLS GPS approach.

It's not as simple as that because there are other requirements that will need to be met including ones that may not even have been thought of yet. This is very early on in the development of this technology and it is nowhere near as mature as other forms of PBN, but you're right that it will greatly increase airports capability and usefulness.

The disruption will happen quicker than we can imagine once it's gets rolling.

I sincerely hope you're right about that too.

[B208]

You really need a second guy to start and taxi an airplane? Your exageration takes away from your credibility in this discussion.

Pre-flight is when the flight profile is programmed into the computer and performance calculations are made and entered among many other things happening at once demanding your attention in the back,

Dude, the technology exists for dispatch to send the flight plan directly to your FMS. Dispatch checks it, you check it -> double checked. The rest of the pre-flight consists of checking that switches are in the correct position and parameters are in the correct ranges. The current generation of airliners were designed to have a human check those switches and parameters because there were no reliable automation methods to take over that task. Modern automation and technology, on the other hand, is quite capable of taking over in this regard. There will be no need for a human to check the position of certain switches, (say, generators), because there won't be any need for a physical switch. The system in question can be software controlled and software monitored. All the single pilot would need to do is tell the computer to do the preflight. The computer would then report back with a go/no go or more detailed status. The technology is there, it just needs to be integrated into aviation.

[AuxBatOn]

It is already integrated. The F-35 has only a handful of switches (other than the HOTAS buttons) mostly ised in abnormal situations.

To start the aircraft and check systems you literally only have to press the "Start" button.

[Cat Driver]

To start the aircraft and check systems you literally only have to press the "Start" button.

AAhhh but can you taxi it all by yourself???

[Rockie]

Same with the Airbus, move the engine masters to run and the FADEC takes care of the rest.

B208

Do you fly airplanes, and if so...what?

[av8ts]

However, a computer most likely would not have allowed the Collgan or Air France to happen.

Strange you would cite these cases B208 as both aircraft had autopilots and computers that failed. In Colgan's case the wings were iced up and it exceeded the autopilot's capabilities so it disconnected. In Air France the sensors were iced up which removed valid information for those computers to act on, so they quit as well.

In both cases the only thing that could have saved those airplanes was a properly trained pilot.

There was no autopilot or computer failure in the Colgan crash. The crew incorrectly flew non icing speeds which triggered a stall warning and automatic autopilot disengage. The airplane was still 20kts above actual stall. The Captain pulled back on the controls and stalled it

[trey kule]

Av8ts.....

Stop mudding the arguments with pertinent facts. Rockie’s mind is made up.
It was the damn autopilot disconnecting like it was supposed to that caused the accident...not the incompetent pilot...because, you know, the second crew member would have never allowed it to happen. It was the dreaded “ killed by autopilot” scenario we all fear.

And the Air France disaster. I have it on good authority that the autopilot did not sleep at all the night before and may have been overoiled. Unlike the Captain who was well rested and ready to assume command at any moment. Or the competent FO who understood the recovery technique for a stall...Nope. No human factors at play in that accident either.

[AuxBatOn]

Same with the Airbus, move the engine masters to run and the FADEC takes care of the rest.

B208

Do you fly airplanes, and if so...what?

The STOVL variant of the F-35 can also hover with absolute minimal pilot inputs. All done by the computers mostly. A pilot can take a jet aircraft, bring it to a hover over a moving platform and smoothly land within 2 feet of a target, consistently, with minimal pilot workload. Certainly an airliner could be flown from/to fixed concrete runways in a very automated way. If you want backup, why not provide it through a central center where one operator backs up several platforms. In a properly configured cockpit, I cannot see a need to have someone there physically actionning things. If the PNF's job is mostly error catching, this can be done with a mix of automation (computers are really good at catching deviations from the plan) and remote human intervention.

To understand this though, you'll need to grow those T-Rex arms.

My guess is that in 5-10 years, we'll see single-pilot airliners prototypes/proof of concepts. I can see airlines putting a lot of pressures on the regulators to allow such operations.

[Rockie]

The STOVL variant of the F-35 can also hover with absolute minimal pilot inputs. All done by the computers mostly. A pilot can take a jet aircraft, bring it to a hover over a moving platform and smoothly land within 2 feet of a target, consistently, with minimal pilot workload. Certainly an airliner could be flown from/to fixed concrete runways in a very automated way. If you want backup, why not provide it through a central center where one operator backs up several platforms. In a properly configured cockpit, I cannot see a need to have someone there physically actionning things. If the PNF's job is mostly error catching, this can be done with a mix of automation (computers are really good at catching deviations from the plan) and remote human intervention.

To understand this though, you'll need to grow those T-Rex arms.

My guess is that in 5-10 years, we'll see single-pilot airliners prototypes/proof of concepts. I can see airlines putting a lot of pressures on the regulators to allow such operations.

I’m guessing you’re an engineer right? It is truly rich getting lectured on CRM and multi-crew safety in an airline environment by a single seat fighter pilot. Has the irony occurred to you yet that the seat you sit in is an escape mechanism?

I’ve explained in some detail over the last few pages why we do what we do and even drawn parallels to tactical formations that should have triggered some sort of recognition, but you’re a slow learner it seems. Go back and read it again, but not before acknowledging that you know nothing about it and do not have the type of experience to relate it to, otherwise it’ll be another wasted exercise.

CRM has been refined over many, many years as have our procedures, and has been universally accepted by the industry that has a lot of hard experience with this sort of thing. They won’t be listening to people like you anytime soon.

By the way, helicopters have been auto hovering for decades.

[Rockie]

Av8ts.....

Stop mudding the arguments with pertinent facts. Rockie’s mind is made up.
It was the damn autopilot disconnecting like it was supposed to that caused the accident...not the incompetent pilot...because, you know, the second crew member would have never allowed it to happen. It was the dreaded “ killed by autopilot” scenario we all fear.

And the Air France disaster. I have it on good authority that the autopilot did not sleep at all the night before and may have been overoiled. Unlike the Captain who was well rested and ready to assume command at any moment. Or the competent FO who understood the recovery technique for a stall...Nope. No human factors at play in that accident either.

Did you even read my post? Not only did you not understand it but the point I was making is obviously hopelessly out of reach over your head.

[Rockie]

However, a computer most likely would not have allowed the Collgan or Air France to happen.

Strange you would cite these cases B208 as both aircraft had autopilots and computers that failed. In Colgan's case the wings were iced up and it exceeded the autopilot's capabilities so it disconnected. In Air France the sensors were iced up which removed valid information for those computers to act on, so they quit as well.

In both cases the only thing that could have saved those airplanes was a properly trained pilot.

There was no autopilot or computer failure in the Colgan crash. The crew incorrectly flew non icing speeds which triggered a stall warning and automatic autopilot disengage. The airplane was still 20kts above actual stall. The Captain pulled back on the controls and stalled it

Read the second sentence of my post again and tell me where we differ. Also re-read the last sentence.

[B208]

Same with the Airbus, move the engine masters to run and the FADEC takes care of the rest.

B208

Do you fly airplanes, and if so...what?

Oh-oh. Rockie is getting cranky. You already know the answers to those questions, so don't try and distract from the argument, (which you are losing) at hand.

The fact is, (as has been attested to on this thread by several very competent engineers and pilots), that single pilot airliners are practicable. This concept may stick in your craw, but that is alright. Reality needs no approval from you in order to exist.

[B208]

The STOVL variant of the F-35 can also hover with absolute minimal pilot inputs. All done by the computers mostly. A pilot can take a jet aircraft, bring it to a hover over a moving platform and smoothly land within 2 feet of a target, consistently, with minimal pilot workload. Certainly an airliner could be flown from/to fixed concrete runways in a very automated way. If you want backup, why not provide it through a central center where one operator backs up several platforms. In a properly configured cockpit, I cannot see a need to have someone there physically actionning things. If the PNF's job is mostly error catching, this can be done with a mix of automation (computers are really good at catching deviations from the plan) and remote human intervention.

To understand this though, you'll need to grow those T-Rex arms.

My guess is that in 5-10 years, we'll see single-pilot airliners prototypes/proof of concepts. I can see airlines putting a lot of pressures on the regulators to allow such operations.

I’m guessing you’re an engineer right? It is truly rich getting lectured on CRM and multi-crew safety in an airline environment by a single seat fighter pilot. Has the irony occurred to you yet that the seat you sit in is an escape mechanism?

I’ve explained in some detail over the last few pages why we do what we do and even drawn parallels to tactical formations that should have triggered some sort of recognition, but you’re a slow learner it seems. Go back and read it again, but not before acknowledging that you know nothing about it and do not have the type of experience to relate it to, otherwise it’ll be another wasted exercise.

CRM has been refined over many, many years as have our procedures, and has been universally accepted by the industry that has a lot of hard experience with this sort of thing. They won’t be listening to people like you anytime soon.

By the way, helicopters have been auto hovering for decades.

Wow, it's a shame that you got out of the Air Force Rockie. Given the level of obstinacy and mild personality disorder you have shown, you could have made flag rank.

[B208]

Strange you would cite these cases B208 as both aircraft had autopilots and computers that failed. In Colgan's case the wings were iced up and it exceeded the autopilot's capabilities so it disconnected. In Air France the sensors were iced up which removed valid information for those computers to act on, so they quit as well.

In both cases the only thing that could have saved those airplanes was a properly trained pilot.

There was no autopilot or computer failure in the Colgan crash. The crew incorrectly flew non icing speeds which triggered a stall warning and automatic autopilot disengage. The airplane was still 20kts above actual stall. The Captain pulled back on the controls and stalled it

Read the second sentence of my post again and tell me where we differ. Also re-read the last sentence.

I don't think you're grasping our argument's Rockie. Colgan and Air France were lost due to pilots not recognizing pertinent cues. Modern software can be programmed to recognize those cues much more quickly and consistently that a human pilot. We are in a position to program the next generation of airliners to catch and prevent pilot errors like Colgan and Air France

[Rockie]

Same with the Airbus, move the engine masters to run and the FADEC takes care of the rest.

B208

Do you fly airplanes, and if so...what?

You already know the answers to those questions, so don't try and distract from the argument, (which you are losing) at hand.

No actually I don't know the answer to those questions. What you know about CRM and multi-crew procedure rationale could fit five times on the head of a pin with plenty of room to spare, so either you don't fly anything that uses those procedures or you're remarkably dense. Both are possible in my mind (even likely) hence the questions. Anything is possible from an engineer's point of view but they naively and unrealistically think life unfolds neatly as programmed. It doesn't. For your entertainment and hopefully enlightenment here are a couple of collections for you to consider.

http://www.devtopics.com/20-famous-software-disasters/
https://10mosttoday.com/10-most-famous- ... disasters/

Number 1 on the engineering disaster list should have taught engineers some humility and scepticism but sadly it doesn't appear to have. That's why they need to be supervised by people with a larger perspective.

This is also the internet dude, arguments aren't won or lost. They just go on and on forever.

[av8ts]

In Colgan's case the wings were iced up and it exceeded the autopilot's capabilities so it disconnected.

In both cases the only thing that could have saved those airplanes was a properly trained pilot.

There was no autopilot or computer failure in the Colgan crash. The crew incorrectly flew non icing speeds which triggered a stall warning and automatic autopilot disengage. The airplane was still 20kts above actual stall. The Captain pulled back on the controls and stalled it

Read the second sentence of my post again and tell me where we differ. Also re-read the last sentence.

The autopilot did not disconnect because any capabilities were exceeded. It disconnected because it was programmed to with a stall warning. A autopilot that was programmed to stay connected and fly a stall recovery procedure would have saved the day

[B208]

No actually I don't know the answer to those questions. What you know about CRM and multi-crew procedure rationale could fit five times on the head of a pin with plenty of room to spare

OK, just to keep your cranky quotient from pegging. I fly medium transport category multi-engine turbo-props in a crew and SOP environment. In the past I have taught both CRM and initial introduction to crew concept. While I freely admit that there are those out there with greater knowledge that I, you are going to have to find an obscenely large pin if you intend to use it to store five times my knowledge of those subjects. Now, Rockie, have you ever been certified to teach CRM or convert pilots from single pilot ops to crew environment?
Also, what platform do you like to do software development on? I have learned C, C++, Java, Python, and PHP. In the interests of full disclosure I will state that I only ever made money developing in C++ and PHP. Could you please enlighten us as to your software credentials?

Anything is possible from an engineer's point of view

Thank heaven that's so, otherwise we would never have invented automobiles, aircraft or the internet. I find it ironic that someone who incessantly preaches liberal values, (by which I mean you cupcake ), can demonstrate such a closed mind to new concepts.

should have taught engineers some humility

Now that's funny. A former fighter guy lecturing others on the need to be humble.

This is also the internet dude, arguments aren't won or lost. They just go on and on forever.

Nope. Arguments are won and lost, (you lost about 20 posts ago).
Single pilot airliners are doable, and they are coming. You can yell and shake you fist at the internet all you want, it won't change it.

[Rockie]

Yes B208, I’ve been training pilots in single seat jets and multi- crew transport category jets for close to 30 years now. Based on that experience and your stunning ignorance of CRM principles I call bullshit. It is extremely unlikely that someone so fundamentally clueless about why we have the procedures we do could use them on the job much less teach them. If what you say is unbelievably true it is the most spectacular case of miscasting I’ve seen in many years. Not unheard of mind you, I’ve seen some pretty bad characters in charge of standards over the years.

It wasn’t difficult pegging you as a programmer /engineer either. Full disclosure - I thankfully have no experience in the mind-numbing field of computer programming. My field is actually using it and recognizing, then compensating for the occasions your product falls flat on its face. Which it does regularly enough to never trust it.

[C.W.E.]

Thank heaven that's so, otherwise we would never have invented automobiles, aircraft or the internet. I find it ironic that someone who incessantly preaches liberal values, (by which I mean you cupcake ), can demonstrate such a closed mind to new concepts.

B208 I wonder if he makes sure that KFC only puts left wings in his orders?

[Rockie]

There was no autopilot or computer failure in the Colgan crash. The crew incorrectly flew non icing speeds which triggered a stall warning and automatic autopilot disengage. The airplane was still 20kts above actual stall. The Captain pulled back on the controls and stalled it

Read the second sentence of my post again and tell me where we differ. Also re-read the last sentence.

The autopilot did not disconnect because any capabilities were exceeded. It disconnected because it was programmed to with a stall warning. A autopilot that was programmed to stay connected and fly a stall recovery procedure would have saved the day

Why do you suppose it was programmed to disconnect with the stall warning? Carrying that thought further, name an aircraft that recovers from a stall on autopilot.

[Rockie]

Thank heaven that's so, otherwise we would never have invented automobiles, aircraft or the internet. I find it ironic that someone who incessantly preaches liberal values, (by which I mean you cupcake ), can demonstrate such a closed mind to new concepts.

B208 I wonder if he makes sure that KFC only puts left wings in his orders?

If you want to turn this into a political discussion since you and B208 have nothing of value to add to the CRM topic I’m happy to do so. You sure you want to go there?

[C.W.E.]

No need to go any further with the political discussions Rockie as we are worlds apart on that subject.

As to the subject of flying though I personally get tired of your condescending better than the rest of us attitude you seem to have.

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us just may know something about flying and some of us just may have accomplished things you have not?

I started flying in 1953 and flew for fifty one years all over the world and retired with an accident and regulatory violations free record and do not appreciate being talked down to by someone with a made up name on the internet.

. ..

[Rockie]

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us just may know something about flying and some of us just may have accomplished things you have not?

Has it ever occurred to you . that I just may know something about flying and have accomplished things you have not?

You guys are under the misconception that you’re arguing with me. You aren’t. You are arguing against the collective wisdom and evolved procedures and principles that govern the airline industry worldwide. I just happen to agree with them and am repeating them here.

So who’s being arrogant again?

[av8ts]

Read the second sentence of my post again and tell me where we differ. Also re-read the last sentence.

The autopilot did not disconnect because any capabilities were exceeded. It disconnected because it was programmed to with a stall warning. A autopilot that was programmed to stay connected and fly a stall recovery procedure would have saved the day

Why do you suppose it was programmed to disconnect with the stall warning? Carrying that thought further, name an aircraft that recovers from a stall on autopilot.

Before I answer those questions, are you now admitting that you were wrong in saying “it exceeded the autopilots capabilities so it disconnected “ and agree the autopilot did as it was programmed to do?

[Rockie]

Why do I have to point out the obvious? The autopilot is programmed to disconnect at the stall warning because it has no capability to recover from a stall. While it is true stick shakers and stall warnings occur at a margin above the actual aerodynamic stall for certification reasons, what the autopilot is in effect telling you is that “you’re going somewhere I can’t go so you have control”. We are also required to perform the stall recovery procedure at the stall warning which the autopilot cannot do whether you’re actually in a stall or not so again...”you have control”. Think about it for a minute before you continue down this line of discussion.

Is there an aircraft that recovers from a stall on autopilot? Honest question, it might exist in some basic crude way in some airplane that I am unaware of. There are some airplanes that prevent a stall through angle of attack protection (a wonderful thing for wind shear and GPWS recoveries) but that’s not the same thing.