Cathay Working On Single-Pilot System for Long-Haul (reuters.com) 94
schwit1 writes: Cathay Pacific is working with Airbus to introduce "reduced crew" long-haul flights with a sole pilot in the cockpit much of the time, industry sources told Reuters. The programme, known within Airbus as Project Connect, aims to certify its A350 jet for single-pilot operations during high-altitude cruise, starting in 2025 on Cathay passenger flights, the sources said. High hurdles remain on the path to international acceptance. Once cleared, longer flights would become possible with a pair of pilots alternating rest breaks, instead of the three or four currently needed to maintain at least two in the cockpit. That promises savings for airlines, amid uncertainty over the post-pandemic economics of intercontinental flying. But it is likely to encounter resistance from pilots already hit by mass layoffs, and safety concerns about aircraft automation.
Haha (Score:2)
Only one in the cockpit over the Pacific did not work out so well for Amelia Earhart.
Re: (Score:3)
THAT's the first thing that comes to mind? I hope Airbus has improved their planes since the days Earhart was flying
Not solo (Score:5, Informative)
Earhart was the only pilot of her plane. Airbus' Project Connect is proposing one pilot in the cockpit under certain circumstances. There would still be two pilots on the aircraft. This is different from today where long haul routes have three or more pilots aboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Earhart was the only pilot of her plane. Airbus' Project Connect is proposing one pilot in the cockpit under certain circumstances. There would still be two pilots on the aircraft. This is different from today where long haul routes have three or more pilots aboard.
Everyone can see what the airlines eventually want here, though: no pilots in the plane.
No crew = cheaper operation.
So, if they get their way, it'll go from one active and one reserve pilot, to one human and software backups when he's sleeping/eating/taking a dump, etc, to eventually Welcome to Skynet Airways.
The corporate mindset is always, ALWAYS shed costs... especially workers... and automate uber-cheaply. Because these people would whore out their own grandmothers for a nickels' worth of stock price in
Re: (Score:2)
There would still be two pilots on the aircraft.
Exactly. Long-haul flights requiring work of pilots exceeding 8 hours from when they get to work before the flight to when they leave work after the flight have two cockpit crews. One sleeps off-duty in the cabin while the other operates in the cockpit. This meets regulations which don't allow pilots to work for more than 8 hours.
Once the plane is at altitude and the autopilot is set, there's not actually a lot to do in the cockpit. Project Connect would reorganize the few parts of the operation which curre
Re:Haha (Score:5, Interesting)
Only one in the cockpit over the Pacific did not work out so well for Amelia Earhart.
Or 150 people on Germanwings Flight 9525 [wikipedia.org]. There should never be only one person in the cockpit. In the US, if one of the pilots has to get up to go take a whiz, the head flight attendant has to be present in the cockpit.
Re: (Score:1)
One pilot could easily whack the other pilot on the head anyway, so... shrug.
Re: (Score:2)
Always the same binary logic that treats each and every likelihood as absolutely identical and all likelihoods above zero are "likely".
Preventive measures are not useless because there is a tiny risk remaining. Preventive measures are typically useful when their cost is lower than the total risk they reduce, by reducing likelihood and / or impact of adverse events.
The reverse is also true: preventive measures that cost ten times the risk they reduce are typically a bad idea.
Denying this is Reddit-level of r
Re: (Score:2)
Single pilot danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Only under certain conditions (Score:2)
Airbus' Project Connect would only use a single pilot at cruising altitude.
Re:Only under certain conditions (Score:5, Insightful)
Well when that single pilot descends from cruising altitude into a mountainside (which is exactly what happened in the cited Germanwings incident [bbc.com]), then I'm sure that the other pilot will just automagically appear through the secured cabin door to put the whole thing to right.
Re:Single pilot danger (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a requirement for multiple pilots in the cockpit across much of the world because of the risk from a single pilot, as a bunch of Germans found out when a suicidal pilot flew the plane into a mountain
Also, EgyptAir Flight 990, where the relief pilot flew the aircraft into the sea. And Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which is increasingly looking like the pilot in command deliberately hijacked the aircraft and flew it in a pattern to hide it's changed flightpath and crash it with no one knowing where it had gone. Without the satellite pings, we'd never have known where it went.
Re: (Score:2)
The requirement is not two in the cockpit (Score:2)
But two on duty.
So when one of them gets up to have a pee the other can lock them out. Which has happened on several occasions.
Having two pilots doubles the likelihood of a pilot suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
The more people, the more risk one of them may be an adversary? Reality and experience shows the opposite effect: the more people are in one spot, the less risk that one of them tries (and succeed!) committing an attack.
All critical industries do it like this, the military has done it since prehistoric times. Typically, it even is three or more people from different backgrounds and for the cockpit crew, it was like this until a few decades ago.
The main reason we have more events like this is the world going
Re: (Score:1)
Co-pilots have done that too, by locking the pilot out when he went for a pee, or by directly wrestling over the controls until they crash.
A single-pilot system my halve your chances of getting killed that way.
Re:Single pilot danger (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth pointing out that in an emergency situation, one pilot is supposed to fly the plane, while the other pilot troubleshoots the problem (pulls out the flight manual and goes through the manufacturer's checklist). Captain Sully wouldn't have been able to safely land his plane on the Hudson if he'd had to fly the plane and make snap judgements about where he could land, while simultaneously having his head buried in the flight manual so he could go through the steps for an emergency in-flight restart of a failed engine. When you drop below two pilots, you're essentially gambling (with the passengers' lives) that the failure rate of automated flight systems (i.e. accidents caused by equipment failure) will be lower than the failure rate of two pilots (i.e. accidents caused by "pilot error").
And even if that's true and the automated systems are safer, it'll still be a tough sell to a public which is mostly ignorant of the principle of opportunity cost and the fallacy of hindsight. They won't think of it as "it's sad this accident occurred, but rest assured that the overall accident rate is lower than if we were still using pilots." They'll think of it as "this plane could've been saved if a human pilot had been in control."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Single pilot danger (Score:2)
Professional pilot here. Thatâ(TM)s not why there are multiple pilots on transport aircraft. Itâ(TM)s because the high-workload phases are too much for one person. The en route phase is the lowest workload and is absolutely manageable by one person.
Also, lthough I donâ(TM)t know about Cathay specifically, not all airlines outside the US have flight deck doors.
Re: Single pilot danger (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's 2021, and you still haven't learned not to use smart quotes on Slashdot. It hasn't changed. Why is this a surprise to you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Single pilot danger (Score:2)
AF447 is a much better counter example for reduced cockpit presence than the ones give here too. Two people in the cockpit, high workload whilst the most experienced was resting resulted in deteriorating communication etc. The idea that a single person might end up in that scenario is frankly terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Removing either of the two noobs from the cockpit would also have worked by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Git gud!
Re: (Score:2)
Professional pilot here. Thatâ(TM)s not why there are multiple pilots on transport aircraft. Itâ(TM)s because the high-workload phases are too much for one person. The en route phase is the lowest workload and is absolutely manageable by one person.
While that is true 99% of the time, IMHO, it's the 1% that needs to be carefully thought out. When something goes wrong, who troubleshoots and who flies the plane? Granted, the relief pilot can get up and help, but that still takes time and adds one more complexity for a pilot trying to decide what has happened. While I am not a professional pilot, I have worked in nuke plant control rooms where most operations are routine and 1 person can easily handle the workload. it's when things go wrong that you can q
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a requirement for multiple pilots in the cockpit across much of the world because of the risk from a single pilot, as a bunch of Germans found out when a suicidal pilot flew the plane into a mountain
It's a fantasy to think that having 2 pilots in the cockpit solves this problem. It is trivial to overpower someone who trusts you. And no the requirement long predated suicidal pilots.
The single pilot danger is out of fear from mistakes, fatigue etc. All of this is quite irrelevant when cruising on autopilot at high altitude. Hell we've plenty of examples of planes that happily kept going and overshot their destination by hours because of distracted pilots not paying attention. The risk of a single pilot a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how the presence of two pilots would reduce the risk:
"Hey, would you like to pilot alone while I take a few steps along the cockpit?" says suicidal pilot who then takes and uses the emergency hatchet/safety axe/crash axe.
Oh come on (Score:3)
>"It makes sense to say OK, instead of having two in the cockpit, we can have one in the cockpit, the other one taking a rest, provided we're implementing technical solutions which make sure that if the single one falls asleep or has any problem, there won't be any unsafe conditions."
Then hire someone cheaper to sit in the cockpit and banter, look at the skies, etc.
The amount of money spent on researching and implementing a single-pilot solution probably costs more than keeping the extra pilots employed, but some project manager / AVP is getting a big payout from this "research".
Re: (Score:2)
Have to agree there, this reads like pure MBA profit-increasing nonsense.
I feel like once the the tech to meet all the requirements to accomplish this is mature will already have a fully automated flying system from taxi to landing and back at the gate and the one "pilot" would only be there to supervise the computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure and many airports have CATIII infrastructure for auto-land procedures but that is still a far cry of it passing safety and regulatory muster enough to enable pilotless or single pilot long haul flights. Even if it was 80% there in 1972 those 20% of outside edge cases and variables will still take a couple decades at least to overcome the hurdles to be trusted with a transoceanic flight by itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
keeping the pilot awaye ? easy .. cattle prod in the seat's bottom .. that'll wake the boyo
Boeing 737 Max 8 Automation kill a lot (Score:2)
Boeing 737 Max 8 Automation kill a lot of people and now we want to add even more of it?
Re: (Score:3)
unlike boeing, airbus doesn't skimp on sensors.
this is why the a350 nose looks so unshaved.
This is what they're doing instead of paying (Score:3)
Re:This is what they're doing instead of paying (Score:4, Interesting)
The original long haul flights, 19 hours from Hawaii to California, had two crews. Personnel on the plane has been decreasing my entire life. The cockpit crew is going to depend on liability.
Re: (Score:2)
We have pilots, it is just that price pressures limit pay. Jet Blue reportedly pay as low as 45K to under 200K. United pays 100K more. Low priced airlines depend on low priced wages.
The original long haul flights, 19 hours from Hawaii to California, had two crews. Personnel on the plane has been decreasing my entire life. The cockpit crew is going to depend on liability.
Airlines are a feast-or-famine industry. Regulation kept costs artificially high (to the point that average people couldn't afford to fly). De-regulation freed up innovation and cost efficiencies, allowing Average Schmoe to get his $99 tickets, but at the price of closing unproductive routes and being at the mercy of the business cycle (and disasters). So pick your poison on which you think is the better end: only the rich and upper middle class fly, while everyone else goes Greyhound (or simply doesn't tra
No navigator / engineer? (Score:3)
Backup Live Pilot (Score:2)
So...it's an automated flight, and the live pilot is really just there for backup, or maybe to do the landing.... Or maybe that's just the next step?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the '70s, TWA's L1011 aircraft had some pretty sophisticated autopilots. So much so, that often they would announce after landing if it was the auto pilot, or the human pilot who made the landing.
It was said to be advanced enough that a layman could land the plane on auto pilot, should the pilots become incapacitated. The layman simply had to stand on the breaks when they touched down. At least that was the rumor.
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that aircraft are required to regularly perform automated landings (under pilot supervision) in order to maintain their CAT landing certifications.
Like, at least once per month or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pilots often don't like doing hands-off landings, because trying to ensure you're not missing something when you're not controlling the plane yourself is very stressful. It's all well and good when it works, but if it doesn't work, it's the pilot's responsibility to notice, and the pilot's fault if they fail to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think the L1011 was the very first to be rated for a CAT III autolanding...when I go back and double-check myself.
But, as others have commented, Pilots weren't/aren't always keen on the autoland feature. Which, I can understand. Automation, while it makes their job easier, also makes them worth less money to the company, and threatens their livelihood. Collectively, we have some of the same fears with the emerging technology of autonomous vehicles on the roadways. We want a driver in the seat
So much is already automated. (Score:3)
So much of commercial air travel is already automated, and the automation is only going to get better. Yes, we hit a stumbling block with the Boeing sensors and computers. Hopefully we've learned from that and can move forward and iterate quickly. Granted "quickly" with the FAA means 5 to 10 years.
But, as we improve automation and auto-pilots, the human pilots are mostly just to make sure things don't go wrong and fix them when they do.
I've talked with commercial pilots where the only flying they do is crossing the country. 90% of it is all on auto-pilot, they hardly do any "real" flying as it is. I think it is likely that by improving the ergonomics / workload and automation in a cockpit so that it can be handled by 1 pilot, we will also improve the overall safety.
Re: (Score:2)
funny you say "we hit a stumbling block" when it's only Boeing making shoddy work. Do you own Boeing stock? Maybe Boeing should just go out of business instead, they aren't the only commercial jet maker.
Re: So much is already automated. (Score:2)
Yea, because an Airbus [youtu.be] has never had disasterous outcomes from pilots fighting automation. Or... maybe you own Airbus stock?
Re: (Score:2)
you mean the automation saving a lot of lives after the pilot managed to put the aircraft into an unrecoverable low energy situation?
without envelope protection the plqne would have immefiately stalled and crashed killing everyone instead of slowly gliding onto the tree tops.
Re: (Score:2)
not really relevant, they were doing stupid stunt at airshow and went off plan to were crowd were, and went lower than the trees there, and sucked in tops of trees to engines. Human dumb-assery 100% the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually my point. Human dumb-assery where the automation actually saved many lives. Without it there would have been no survivors.
Re: (Score:2)
oh you mean first one of three produced doing demonstration at air show with some "chartered passengers" where dumb-ass pilot doing fly-by was 40 feet up and hit tops of trees, sucking in branches and leaves and so had a crash?
Not relevant. Stupid stunts at airshows with passenger jet are dangerous, yes
Re: So much is already automated. (Score:1)
"We won't repeat our recent errors" is a form of hubris that's only so many notches below "we know what we're doing" that I don't think it makes much of a difference in this particular context.
Re: So much is already automated. (Score:1)
To be fair. We tend not to repeat our errors from yesterday. It is the error from 2 days ago that we repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
funny how we forget how "Scarebus" got its name.
Re: (Score:1)
So much of commercial air travel is already automated, and the automation is only going to get better. Yes, we hit a stumbling block with the Boeing sensors and computers.
It was actually the pilots who crashed those Boeings by reacting "wrongly" to the aircraft systems.
(ie. they hadn't been trained to fly the aircraft after Boeing had modified them)
Most stupid proposal in a long time. (Score:2)
One pilot = flying bombs.
Realise there's no way to insure that the pilot won't switch off the auto pilot ( a hammer will do fine ) and fly
the jet straight to a target. There's no way in hell that a single pilot will ever be safe. Guy blows a fuse and goodbye building x or
nuclear plant x or whatever.
Can't convince me otherwise since 9 11
Re: (Score:2)
How do you reconcile your concerns with the fact that pilots occasionally need to pee during flights, and leave their co-pilot alone in the cockpit while they do so? If there were a significant number of pilots who wanted to commit mass murder we'd have this problem already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing as a Chief air hostess (or any air hostess) on cargo flights. And unless the cargo flight is ultra long haul, there really are only two pilots onboard and nobody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using a parachute on a jet. You are very funny.
Re: (Score:2)
If there were a significant number of pilots who wanted to commit mass murder we'd have this problem already.
Yep. The reason it's not very frequent is because .... it's not very frequent.
It's not because there's two guys in the cockpit.
Re: (Score:2)
We have had infrequent murder-suicide events in the cockpit and most of them happened while there was only one pilot was in the cockpit, no matter the reason (by accident, by chance or by force).
The rest of the time, there's two people in the cockpit (we do have women, not just guys, please update your world model) and with two of them in the cockpit, we curiously didn't have suicide events. Those only happened after one person succeeded in subduing the other or locking them out. Having no other person in t
Re: (Score:2)
A mitigated risk is equal to an umitigated risk?
Mitigation measures to risks are worthless if they don't mitigate it to zero?
Please.
Humans have unlearned statistics in the last ten years.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way in hell that a single pilot will ever be safe. Guy blows a fuse and goodbye building x or
nuclear plant x or whatever.
Can't convince me otherwise since 9 11
One pilot can easily whack another pilot on the head. Think of that the next time you go outdoors.
Hammering controls = bullshit (Score:2)
You clearly haven't a fucking clue about avionics, but a hammer also works on unsuspecting co-pilots.
Not a problem (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Will airlines have to say if single-pilot flight? (Score:2)
Airframe by Michael Crichton will want you to keep the Senior pilots IN THE COCKPIT.
Even better (Score:1)
Uh no (Score:2)
I'm sorry, this isn't how you instill confidence in air transportation especially for a long haul carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, this isn't how you instill confidence in air transportation especially for a long haul carrier.
Oh? Long haul air travel has a confidence problem? Really? I mean we're talking about the safest form of transport imaginable, and one which has been made increasingly safer through many years of automation.
Re: (Score:2)
most of the time, unless a pilot is alone on the flight deck and has issues at home or with people in general. There's also that pesky issue of pilots dying inflight. [nbcnews.com] While statistically it's very safe the human factor can be risky and as long as we have that I want multiple, skilled and experienced pilots onboard.
I think the FAA will say no to 1 man killing this! (Score:2)
I think the FAA will say no to 1 man killing this!
Bathroom (Score:2)
This sounds like a stupid idea which passengers will not appreciate.
Re: (Score:2)
rtfs, dude. just for once.
Radio communications / observations (Score:2)
A couple of things computers do poorly that pilots do generally well are:
Communications. Interpreting what ATC is telling you can be easy, or very difficult depending on where you are and the experience of ATC. Training software to interpret what is spoken, often with poor radio quality, odd dialects, or with stepped on transmissions is near impossible.
Observation. ATC calling to ask for visual assistance in regards to another plane. Another tough nut to crack for software to interpret and respond intellige
Accident planning (Score:1)
It's like the old joke about flying goes... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The version that I've heard is that in the future planes will have just a pilot and a dog in the cockpit. The pilot is there to feed the dog; the dog’s job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.