Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Technology

Aviation Regulators Push for More Automation so Flights Can Be Run by a Single Pilot 157

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
Regulators are pushing the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to examine ways of making single pilot operations the eventual norm in commercial flights. From a report: In a working paper filed with the aviation standards body, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requested on behalf of member states that the "necessary enablers" be created "for a safe and globally harmonized introduction of commercial air transport (CAT) operations of large aeroplanes with optimised crew/single-pilot operations while ensuring an equivalent or higher level of safety compared to that achieved in current operations." There are two obvious drivers for the proposal -- cost cutting and crew shortages. Technology has over decades reduced the need for more people in the cockpit and the hope seems to be that further improvements can pare the current two down to one.

"One of the driving factors for the industry to propose taking advantage of the introduction of these new concepts of operations is a foreseen reduction in operating costs," the paper says, though it does note: "Potential additional costs related to higher-level ground support and two-way communications should also be considered. On the aircraft manufacturer side, the development and certification of new cockpit designs and associated systems may require significant investment, although these will likely produce safety benefits and savings in the medium/long term." The requirements for a full flying license are also incredibly onerous, which creates a bottleneck in the supply for qualified pilots. For most European airlines, you need 1,500 hours flight time before you get a full license. Until then, you're on provisional terms and need a fully qualified pilot operating alongside you.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aviation Regulators Push for More Automation so Flights Can Be Run by a Single Pilot More

Aviation Regulators Push for More Automation so Flights Can Be Run by a Single Pilot

Comments Filter:

  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by dbialac ( 320955 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:31AM (#63068362)
    I feel safe.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Bongo ( 13261 )

      There's going to be so many compensating controls and sign-your-life away waivers (courtesy of the government) that nobody will fly. And that'll satisfy our carbon commitments and we'll all feel very safe. Wish I was being satirical and silly.

      • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

        by michelcolman ( 1208008 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @12:24PM (#63068582)

        When it's cheaper, people will flock to it. Until they start crashing.

        And for those who are bound to bring up the statistic that 80% of crashes are pilot error: in the vast majority of cases where automation screws up (which happens a lot), a crash is prevented by the intervention of the pilots. In my career as a pilot I've already had multiple cases where the automation did something stupid (or just stopped functioning) and where the plane would have crashed if we hadn't been there. Take the pilots out and you'll get an order of magnitude more crashes.

        Also, many crashes that are really caused by automation are (correctly) classified as pilot error because the pilots could have prevented the crash but did not. Just to give one example, the Turkish Airlines crash in Amsterdam on a fully automatic Cat III approach that stalled because of a radio altimeter malfunction. The autopilot thought it was right above the runway while in fact it was still at a height of 400 feet. It pulled the throttles back, the airspeed decreased, the plane stalled and crashed. Pilot error because they should have been closely monitoring the airspeed and should have immediately intervened when the throttles were pulled back.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bongo ( 13261 )

          When it's cheaper, people will flock to it. Until they start crashing.

          And for those who are bound to bring up the statistic that 80% of crashes are pilot error: in the vast majority of cases where automation screws up (which happens a lot), a crash is prevented by the intervention of the pilots. In my career as a pilot I've already had multiple cases where the automation did something stupid (or just stopped functioning) and where the plane would have crashed if we hadn't been there. Take the pilots out and you'll get an order of magnitude more crashes.

          Also, many crashes that are really caused by automation are (correctly) classified as pilot error because the pilots could have prevented the crash but did not. Just to give one example, the Turkish Airlines crash in Amsterdam on a fully automatic Cat III approach that stalled because of a radio altimeter malfunction. The autopilot thought it was right above the runway while in fact it was still at a height of 400 feet. It pulled the throttles back, the airspeed decreased, the plane stalled and crashed. Pilot error because they should have been closely monitoring the airspeed and should have immediately intervened when the throttles were pulled back.

          I'm really shocked; thanks for enlightening.

          Reminds me of how AI speech recognition seems amazing until I say a word in an unusual context and the AI can't recognise it anymore. I guess it's another example of how human minds with skill and training can make sense of novel situations on the fly (excuse the pun). Meanwhile our AIs are tricks with statistics. There's even an argument that evolution retained the left-right brain split, rather than ever arriving at one or the other as being the most advantageou

        • So for this to work you would need the automation to be good enough:

          The workload is low enough you only need 1 pilot. I don't know how far we are from that.

          You can very often finish a flight and autoland safely, but not always. So for those cases where the pilot dies the plane can usually be saved/will act to save itself once it stops getting meaningful pilot input.

          • So for this to work you would need the automation to be good enough:

            If one pilot is sufficient, doesn't that imply that zero pilots is also sufficient? What happens if the lone pilot is incapacitated? This report [nih.gov] estimated that 1 out of 400 pilots per year are incapacitated during a flight, including 10% of those involving sudden deaths.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @01:17PM (#63068798)
      Headline should read: Airlines want to increase profit margins, attempt to cut even more corners, regardless of increased safety risks & rational objections from experienced pilots.
    • Early aircraft had multiple crew. Asides from a pilot/co-pilot position, they also had a navigator, radio-operator, mechanics (servicing the engines in-flight and carrying spare parts due to low reliability), and flight engineers. One by one each of these positions has been made obsolete due to improvements in automation and aircraft reliability. The aircraft safety record has only improved over time, so eliminating aircrew has not affected safety. One man commercial flight operation is already allowed for

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        One man commercial flight operation is already allowed for small aircraft with under 20 passengers and has not been seen to adversely affect safety.

        You might want to check the accident rate for part 135 operators vs. part 121.

        For short haul flights, a 2nd pilot is only needed as a backup, and modern auto-flight systems are reliable enough to handle the small chance of a pilot incapacitated mid-flight.

        So if the pilot is incapacitated, how is the plane going to land?

  • This will end in tears (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shibbie ( 619359 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:33AM (#63068374)
    So get the probability of pilot being incapacitated during flight, halve it, and that's roughly the probability planes in future will drop out of the air near an airport after autopilot switches off and a passenger is asked if they have Microsoft Flight Simulator experience.
    • No, this will end in blood - a lot of it!

    • It's almost as if you've never heard of autolanding....

      https://www.flightdeckfriend.c... [flightdeckfriend.com]

      • lolz! It's almost like you have no clue how autoland works, the airport requirements, airplane requirements and environmental conditions for which CAT-I, CAT-II and CAT-III autoland can be performed.

        • To be fair, autoland as imagined by GP does exist:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mlyle ( 148697 )

            Yes. We can probably build systems that can be 99.5% reliable in the event of pilot incapacitation in getting the plane and passengers down safely. And if the rate of pilot incapacitation is low enough, the overall level of safety can be pretty high.

            Of course, the malicious-pilot scenario gets worse and more likely, and this is harder to deal with.

            And, you know-- when something goes wrong with the aircraft and there's troubleshooting, two pilots are currently often *very* busy. These scenarios will be ma

            • Of course, the malicious-pilot scenario gets worse and more likely, and this is harder to deal with.

              Do they? Are both pilot's catheterized and diapered so they both remain in the cockpit for the duration of the flight? In September I was on a US cross country flight and watched as a flight attendant erected a barricade in front of the forward bath rooms (just behind the cockpit, normally for the 1st class passengers) using a drink cart, and then began standing guard behind the cart. A minute later the cockpit door opened, a pilot emerged and entered the rest room.

              Today, a rogue pilot needs to merely wa

              • Re:Will rogue pilots really be a great concern? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @02:35PM (#63069010)
                This isn't the procedure on most flights. Normal procedure is that there must be two crew in the cockpit at all times. If one pilot needs the bathroom, another flight crew member (it can be a flight attendant) must take their place in the cockpit. That way, a rogue pilot can't lock out the other pilot. It's not a problem both because there aren't many rogue pilots and because there are procedures to prevent rogue pilots from intentionally crashing.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by drnb ( 2434720 )

                  This isn't the procedure on most flights. Normal procedure is that there must be two crew in the cockpit at all times. If one pilot needs the bathroom, another flight crew member (it can be a flight attendant) must take their place in the cockpit. That way, a rogue pilot can't lock out the other pilot.

                  They may very well have done that, a different flight attendant may have entered the cockpit. I was more focused and amused by the barricade and guard.

                  I don't see a rogue pilot taking out the flight attendant as much of a problem. The flight attendant is just something else to work around, not really something to give up planning going rogue over. The rouge has the advantage of choosing the time and place and crew most advantageous.

                  It's not a problem both because there aren't many rogue pilots and because there are procedures to prevent rogue pilots from intentionally crashing.

                  I'm leaning heavily towards "not many" rather than "we have procedures".

          • Most airliners have had autolanding systems for many years now.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tomz16 ( 992375 )

          Right.... so only allow those crew reductions based on the flight paths where the automation is well-understood and actually works.

          You are already drawing a safety margin *somewhere* based entirely on statistical probabilities. e.g. what's the probability BOTH pilots become incapacitated at the same time. THEN WHY NOT ALWAYS CREW WITH THREE PILOTS! WHY NOT FOUR! etc. etc. There's always a point of diminishing returns, and this is no different. You just have to be realistic in assessing the margin bo

          • You just have to be realistic in assessing the margin bought-back by automated systems (e.g. ability to remote pilot, autoland, etc.) vs. the risks inherent in removing redundancy in meat-based pilots.

            Removing a meat sack who might be feeling suicidal could even reduce the overall risk.

        • Re:This will end in tears (Score:5, Informative)

          by michelcolman ( 1208008 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @12:29PM (#63068602)

          Yep, I'm a pilot, and a fully automatic landing actually gives us more work and stress than a manual landing. A special briefing, extra verifications, very close monitoring of the flight parameters, not to mention specific training and regular simulator checks, airport requirements (most runways don't support automatic landings), etc... We only do it when we have to, in very low visibility.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Hasaf ( 3744357 )
            I am not a pilot (except a gyrocopter many years ago). That said, I have flown a lot of passenger miles for work-related reasons. I have been on flights where both pilots were very busy, even when the one pilot was just holding in a red pop-out button (it looked a lot like the air brake controller on a semi) while the other pilot was demonstrating the hard turn capabilities of the aircraft in zero visibility fog.

            I was able to watch in the cockpit, and I chatted with the pilot afterward. He confirmed wha

        • lolz!

          It's almost like you have no clue how autoland works, the airport requirements, airplane requirements and environmental conditions for which CAT-I, CAT-II and CAT-III autoland can be performed.

          Huh? Plenty of landings are already automated.

          Besides: We're talking about an incredibly tiny percentage of extra autolandings - it will only happen when the pilot is incapacitated, ie. almost never. The actual number of extra autolandings will be background noise compared to the number which are already performed.

          Special airport/aircraft requirements? Obviously this will only be done with airports/aircraft which meet those requirements.

          Please pull your head out before replying.

          • Ok, if its so easy, please let us know how an autoland is performed... Lets say, start at 50 miles out from the airport.

            Hint - there isn't a single button which does it. The pilots are involved in setting it up and sometimes it can be tricky. And given autoland is now 70 years old, and its still not a guarantee even if the airport provides it, are we suddenly going to solve that (as if we have just been living with it up til now)?

            And then theres the obvious issue - if *we* are heatedly discussing it here

      • Even with complete automation if you only have one pilot you have a single point of failure because no matter how well-trained humans can still make mistakes and sometimes can be even more seriously broken e.g. if something terrible has happened in their life. Having a co-pilot prevents this single point of failure in a way that no amount of automation can because the automation will always be subject to the pilot being able to override it.

    • Any reason pilot-not-in-command takes command ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @01:43PM (#63068854)

      So get the probability of pilot being incapacitated during flight, halve it, and that's roughly the probability planes in future will drop out of the air near an airport after autopilot switches off and a passenger is asked if they have Microsoft Flight Simulator experience.

      It's not just incapacitation. Check with NASA (*) for any reason that the pilot-not-in-command takes command. We also have two pilots so that inexperienced pilots can be mentored and supervised by experienced pilots. How often do the experienced pilots have to take control?

      Or how many emergency situations need two pilots, where one pilot would be overloaded attempting to respond to the crisis? Again NASA may have data.

      I'm sure there are normal operations that currently overload a single pilot and require two, however I am assuming that this is what automation is supposed to end. Extending such capabilities to emergencies is a much larger problem.

      (*) Yes, NASA. All aviation accidents and incidents are reported to NASA. Keep in mind that the first 'A' in NASA is for "Aeronautics". They are deeply involved in aviation safety.

  • The whole point of having two pilots... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SciCom Luke ( 2739317 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:34AM (#63068376)
    ...is not have backup when the automation fails, but to have backup when one of the pilots fail.

    • Re:The whole point of having two pilots... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Syberz ( 1170343 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:50AM (#63068436)
      They just instituted rules prohibiting a pilot from being alone in the cockpit while the 2nd one was using the bathroom because of that one guy who decided to commit suicide by ramming the full plane into the side of a mountain (after having locked himself in the cockpit while his colleague was peeing).

    • Yes, exactly. If they can get to the point where they truly need only one human pilot... shouldn't that mean they actually need ZERO human pilots?

    • ...is not have backup when the automation fails, but to have backup when one of the pilots fail.

      You got this backwards: automation _reduces_ the risk of human error. Once your system is proven to support a certain situation, say, automatic landing, you can expect a level of repeatability that can't be achieved by humans. We all have good and bad days, but automated systems don't have those.
      Multi-crewed flights predate automation by decades. The other crew is there to reduce the workload and the risk that the _other_ human screws-up.

      Before someone uses the MCAS as an example of why we should _no

      • Re:The whole point of having two pilots... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SomePoorSchmuck ( 183775 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @01:05PM (#63068764) Homepage

        you can expect a level of repeatability that can't be achieved by humans. We all have good and bad days, but automated systems don't have those.

        I didn't think there was such a thing as a slashdotter who had spent no part of his life providing support/service for automated/computer systems.
        But here we are.

        Networks, computer hardware, software, and sensor arrays have bad days all the time. Which is why there are millions of human beings paying their monthly bills by monitoring, managing, and manually fixing automated systems.

        • Networks, computer hardware, software, and sensor arrays have bad days all the time.

          Meaning that hardware and software can fail? Absolutely. My point isn't that systems can't fail, they can, and will. My point is that it's easier to model and understand how a system can be improved so its subsequent operation is more reliable. Of course, this isn't as simple as fixing a bug in your code, I never intended to say it was, but the same principle applies: systems can potentially be made more reliable than humans. Maybe that won't be financially viable because each line of code would end up cos [fastcompany.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        I'm sure we'll reach full automation at some point. There's a finite number of ways for an aircraft to fail and with enough investment, you can certainly program the aircraft to behave correctly (or at least more correctly than a human) in every one of those situations. It will be difficult and take decades to build, and even longer to make economically viable. Certain trade-offs will have to be made, e.g. significantly more money will need to be spent on maintenance, airports will have to install equipment

    • Re:The whole point of having two pilots... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kamitchell ( 1090511 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @01:17PM (#63068804)

      Another thing to remember is that the pilot is not just an "airplane driver." They're trained on the aircraft's systems so that they take remedial action if something breaks in flight. When there's an emergency, tasks are divided between the pilot flying and the pilot not flying...the most important thing in an emergency is to keep flying the airplane. Who's going to do that if the one pilot has to tend to some technical problem? What if the problem includes the autopilot being out of commission?

      See Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, where three cockpit crew were diagnosing a landing gear issue, and nobody was flying the plane. The autopilot disconnected...and nobody noticed. The plane flew into the Everglades, killing 101. Turns out it was only a burned-out lamp. Part of the aftermath was implementing crew resource management to ensure that emergencies are handled efficiently.

      Source: I'm not a commercial pilot, but I have friends who are.

  • Wrong way up (Score:3)

    by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:38AM (#63068384) Journal

    We need more pilots, and maybe better pilots, too. I guess trying to automate them out is cheaper, but it won't be any safer.

    • For the minuscule number of times that the pilot is incapacitated *and* the automation fails, they still have the last ditch backup option: drop in Charlton Heston from a helicopter.

  • Bad idea (Score:3)

    by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:39AM (#63068390) Journal

    This is an extremely bad idea. When everything is OK, you can already fly any commercial aircraft with one pilot. But when things go wrong, automation is your direct enemy. In older aircraft, all instruments are always available and do not switch place. With modern aircraft, all instruments are replaced with a "GUI" on a screen where you have to navigate to the info you need.

    And when the automation erroneously overrules the pilot, a crash cannot even be avoided anymore, no matter how skillful the pilots are. See the 737 MAX problems, where the malfunctioning system had more power to crash the airplane than the pilots had to correct the malfunctioning system. This video [media.ccc.de] gives a good explanation of this.

    • I will agree there are systems on a modern jet airliner, which, if they fail completely, will result in an unrecoverable situation. That said, the 737 MAX problems are a poor example of "a crash cannot even be avoided anymore, no matter how skillful the pilots are" because if the pilots had followed the correct (perhaps overly complicated, and poorly communicated) procedure, the system could have been disabled.
      • If you watch the video, it tells that there are two angle-of-attack sensors, one of which was giving a wrong indication. The aircraft was designed however, to pick one of the sensors randomly for the stall warning system. That means that the system was designed to act randomly. That also meant that the pilots thought that the problem was fixed, when in fact the aircraft just happened to select the other sensor. The system was also designed in such a way that the stall warning system could give more stick mo
        • If you are referring to 737/MCAS issue, the MCAS didn't give stick motion. It gave stabilizer motion. And it's a hard requirement that the pilot can always overpower the stabilizer with the elevator for all rated flight conditions. If one knows the MCAS problem well, its trivial to fly in a simulator. Simply hold the thumb switches down for maximum elevator engagement and overpower the MCAS. However, prior to MCAS, the number of "runaway stabilizer" incidents on 737 (all variants) was exactly equal to

    • As an amateur aviation buff (not a pilot, just enjoy the aviation channels) one thing I am struck by is the complexity of a modern airliner, even with the modern glass cockpit. There is an insane (to me) amount of coordinated precise actions that need to be taken, even with the current levels of automation. Just changing, entering the correct radio frequency seems more involved, using really non-user friendly tools, than seems necessary. Let alone navigation, weather, wing trim, engine thrust, all of it.

    • It is a very incorrect statement to flatly say when things go wrong, automation is your enemy. While yes, there are times when automation has downed the plane, there are far more times when the pilot has downed the plane in direct opposition to the plane's automation, and more times again when automation carried the pilots through a very bad situation which they could not have handled without the aid of the automation. That said, that doesn't make this whole single pilot idea any less terrible. In fact i

  • Seems like the only way people (pilots, aircraft manufacturers, bankers, etc) learn is the hard way.

  • So who is the master (Score:3)

    by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:48AM (#63068428) Journal

    Is the AI in charge and the pilot only gets to fly the plane when and if the AI decides it should defer to the humans instructions?

    Because otherwise It was not quite a decade ago we had suicidal pilots intentionally crashing and killing a plane load of passengers with them.

    Then there are all those potential accidents and failure modes where having a second expert (but a clear chain of command and authority) has probably helped avert disaster. Even if its - I'll fly while you work out glide path and manage external comms.

    We have already experimentally determined that automation or otherwise large airlines SHOULD have multiple pilots in the cockpit. To me the only way this works is if - The computer is going to be the captain and the human pilot really is just a co-poilot who cannot override the automation on his sole authority - and it sure does not seem like we are really there yet.

  • The EU is being shortsighted. If they can make air flight so safe that they can only use one pilot, they can make it so safe that they need no pilots at all. 8^/

    All sarcasm aside, I watch a lot of vids by pilots on accidents and near accidents. As well, people who are involved in accident analysis.

    You often need another brain to run the plane. Misfortunes happen, and will continue to happen. Sometimes another pilot is needed to fly the plane while the other troubleshoots. Or to serve as a sounding boar

    • The EU is being shortsighted. If they can make air flight so safe that they can only use one pilot, they can make it so safe that they need no pilots at all. 8^/

      In fact, leave the engine out too.

    • I suppose telepresence could help with some of that.

      • I suppose telepresence could help with some of that.

        The big planes use something like that already. If something is amiss, they can call into engineers and get some help. Yup, it can be a lifesaver at times.

  • Ask Germanwings what happens when you have a single pilot, https://www.history.com/this-d... [history.com]

  • .. we all love security and safety, but we are currently on the verge and will likely develop into a trans-human species, that at some point in majority isn't able to servive without devices.

    We are currently on the level of the junky-human species.

  • We can remove a pilot (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @11:58AM (#63068468) Homepage

    ... but we'll have to add an IT support guy.

  • Swing one way or the other (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JeffOwl ( 2858633 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @12:01PM (#63068484)
    We are getting into a point where we have the worst of both worlds. Pilots increasingly relying on automation, while at the same time engineers and regulators counting on pilots to take corrective action. Today, if the pilots fail (incapacitated, or both make the same mistake, or even one makes a mistake and the other fails to catch it) everybody dies (numerous examples of this). Likewise if certain critical areas of automation fail, or even if non-critical areas fail and are not noticed by the pilots, or is not responded to correctly, everyone dies (I'm sure I don't need to go into the stability augmentation 737-MAX). Then today you can have the pilot interaction with the automation in a way that produces an unintended result where everyone dies (dials in wrong nav aid - Cali Columbia; dials in wrong rate of descent - Mt Sainte-Odile; etc.). Overall, considering seat miles flow, it isn't terrible compared to other things, but it could be better. We seem to struggle with finding the balance. .

  • The single cheap pilot they have in mind (Score:3)

    by Harald Paulsen ( 621759 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @12:01PM (#63068490) Homepage

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/0... [cnn.com]

    At least with 2 pilots there was a chance that at least one of them was qualified.

    And as someone else said, the workload in a cockpit is high. There are several good reasons to have a two pilot configuration.

  • We are close to the point where automation can handle all routine aircraft operations. With a single pilot to handle non-standard issues, its likely safety can be preserved. Pilot training is of course an issue since pilots will rarely be flying. A really twisted but practical solution is for the pilot to spend their flight time actually flying a training simulator, and only switching to flying the real plane when a problem is detected. This will have the effect of making being a pilot a pretty miserable

  • ...means a single point of failure.

    Never a good idea when lives are potentially at risk.

  • Regulators shouldn't be pushing this. When/if the technology is actually ready the business demands will push it.

    • "Regulators shouldn't be pushing this. When/if the technology is actually ready the business demands will push it."

      Business demands can't push it if the regulators are making it illegal. Not that I think this is a good idea (i don't), but if you want to go ahead with it, it's the regulations that need to be changed.

    • Who do you think pushes the regulators?

      This would sound very bad coming from Boeing or Southwest Airlines. But perfectly acceptable coming from the nanny state.

  • It's true that current operations require too much manual communication and work by pilots, but having only one pilot is a really bad idea.

  • From what I hear from Mentour Pilot, the 1500 hour flight time is what US requires, not the Europeans. And where did 1500 hours come from, not the NTSB but from families of a particular aircraft accident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    Petter writes, "Some are trying to present the 1,500-hour rule as choosing “Quality over quantity”, i.e. that allowing more pilots through, without the rule, risks their quality. In reality, this rule offers neither quantity NOR quality. Even worse, the actual

  • Why not rescind the 1500 hour rule instead? (Score:5, Informative)

    by w3woody ( 44457 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @12:30PM (#63068608) Homepage

    Back about a decade and change ago, the requirement for a pilot to have an Air Transport Pilot License, was that you had to have a Commercial Pilots License--which requires about 250 hours and additional training. But then, in 2009, a loss of control incident [ntsb.gov] caused by both pilots not properly responding to cockpit warnings caused the regulators to introduce the 1500 hour rule--despite both pilots in the aforementioned accident having more than 1500 hours of experience each. [calaero.edu]

    This started the pilot shortage to begin with, as to accumulate 1500 hours of flying time, at (say) $100/hour "wet" rental prices for just renting an aircraft, means you have to spend $150,000 (or find someone who you can teach as a flight instructor, as you get to count hours as a CFI) in order to accumulate the hours necessary to qualify for an ATPL.

    The absurd part is that 1500 hours of experience doesn't necessarily make you a better pilot.

    So rather than address the rules which prevent more people from entering the field, we're trying to figure out how to reduce the number of people in the cockpit, so we now get to have a single point of failure instead?

    Honestly I'd feel safer with two pilots rather than one, even if one of those pilots only had (say) 500 or 600 hours of total experience.

    And if you want to make flying even safer, require all ATPL holders to do a check ride in a Cessna 172. Because a fair number of "loss of control" accidents have happened because a lot of guys flying commercially forgot how to fly basic "stick-and-rudder" stuff; they're more or less just plugging in the approach and departure stuff into the computer and letting the computer fly the airplane.

    • When the 1500 hour rule was instituted, most regional airlines had minimum hiring requirements well over 1500 hours, so the rule had zero real-world impact. It was a case where regulators could say they did something, but it had no real-world cost. The first officer in the Colgan Air disaster had 2250 flight hours total time, which meets current ATP requirements, and she wasn't the pilot who caused the mishap.

      Fast forward to today, and regional airlines cannot retain pilots. But the bigger problem at regi

  • One pilot and a dog... (Score:4, Funny)

    by EABinGA ( 253382 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @12:36PM (#63068644)
    The pilot is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

  • Good idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday November 21, 2022 @01:21PM (#63068812)

    A married pilot is more likely to be suicidal, so yeah single seems like a better choice.

  • Self-driving cars, self-flying planes. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Autopilot to tech support: I have a problem here. Indian tech support: have you tried rebooting yourself? Plane: My Nvidia power connector just burned up.

  • It is not like pilots are a significant cost per flight. With raising fuel costs it might be even less significant.

    Sounds like MBA's wet dream of short term savings while trading redundancy and security.

  • they used to get free, trained pilots from the US military. The US Military doesn't have nearly as many pilots as they used to. We don't need 'em. Modern weapons and such (horses and bayonets as one man said).

    This is their solution. Not "let's fund pilot schools to train the workers we need" but "hey, if we cut the number of pilots needed in half we're golden".
  • I like knowing there is a couple of pilots up front or a driver behind the wheel. I do not trust any kind of automation entirely with my life. Its fine as a redundancy, guide, or tool but it truly has no idea what its doing or what the stakes are. One malfunction or incorrect sensor reading and its all over. Not every real world scenario can be accounted for, programmed in, or dealt with in time to preserve human life on board.

  • when automation fails one pilot can not keep up with the workload.
    Right now you may have one flying and the other doing the check list when something happens.

    • From what I can tell from having been required to read and digest a large number of AAIB (the UK equivalent of whoever in America investigates air crashes for the FAA) crash reports, that is exactly how checklists are meant to be used. Pilot2 - the pilot not actually flying the plane - also does most of the radio traffic, such as raising a Pan-Pan or M'aidez, describing the situation and location to air traffic control, working out course to diversion airfield etc. While PIC (Pilot In Command) is wrestling

  • Can I pay extra for a redundant-pilot flight?

  • On the plus side, when you land safely you'll have a new appreciation for life.
  • God forbids, but if an aircraft ever needs someone in the passenger rank to help maneuver, the automation will surely help keeping lives safe. I have watched a video created by an actual pilot who recorded this onboard an actually flying airplane. It detailed a series of tasks that can't possibly be remembered well by someone who's not trained no the pilot crafts.

    After watching the video, I'm most certain I can land a jumbo jet if I was able to speak to the tower for instructions. Problem is, making the

  • In other news air forces train their own. For-profit businesses are inherently untrustworthy because humans with a profit motive are inherently untrustworthy (desire corrupts even the good into making wrong choices). This is like trucking companies treating drivers like shit, chasing them out of the industry then snivelling that no one wants to work...

  • Lets save memory!

    Brevity aside, CRM (Crew/Cockpit Resource Management) is the primary method for pilots to avoid mistakes... and mistakes do happen. In short, it's a method where both crew members have say in how the aircraft is operated. If the co-pilot sees something wrong with what the captain is doing, it's a way of making sure the issue is resolved. In countries where the Captain is the only authority in the cockpit, bad things happen. For example, look at what recently happened with a LATAM airli
  • Airplane automation is overly complicated because its built in a way to handle a human in the loop. Remove that requirement and the systems can be much simpler while adding redundancy. Frankly the plane can be flown automatically much safer as long as a fully functioning plane is dispatched. Most crashes where automation went haywire are because maintenance dispatched a broken plane. The pilots are meant to be the final check to prevent dispatch of a broken plane as its their lives on the line but increasin
  • We have co-pilots for damned good reasons, like what if the pilot becomes incapacitated?
  • From what I can find airline pilots make around $200/hour, so on a 5 hour flight the extra pilot runs about $1000. Assuming we're talking about a nearly full 777, that's about 3 bucks per passenger. I'll gladly pay that, and don't count on any "savings" should this go through being passed on to customers. It's just a cynical money grab.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close