Story

Is it the beginning of the end? Who knows, but cargo aint pax. Interesting stuff.

When I started in the airline business, there were three  pilots in the cockpit.  Then there were two.

If you are the only pilot in the cockpit, how are you supposed to go back and take a crap on your leg from LAX to MIA?  I know we're talking about box haulers here, but how would it work with people movers?  I wonder what would the passengers think if the only pilot on the plane came out of the cockpit, and went in the lav for 10 minutes.

There’s a pilot relief tube for urine, and beyond that, depends.  

If and when it spreads to big airplane-long haul flying, it will be with a provision for ground monitoring, control and autoland.  

Our Fedex brothers need to do everything they can to negotiate a stop to this program.

With any luck, I have 27ish years left in the pax airline world and pilot-less operations is not something I'm too concerned with wrt to my career.  Some things that will slow implementation;

- Insurance costs
- Pax comfort (though I expect that to become less of a problem as time goes on)
- FAAs glacial pace of operations...it took something like 5 years just to get iPads approved in the cockpit and nearly a decade to get non-published "arrival" for military jets at our podunk class C.
- Frequency allocation
- Infrastructure costs
- Pilot costs...I don't see it getting much cheaper if you want pilots to fly by themselves.
- Long term trial requirements to prove safety.

Another thing that will be an issue for the public to get over is that we crash UAVs all the time...like A LOT!  You don't hear much about them, but it would likely be eye-watering to most if the military released all the data on crashed UAVs.

How do the stat's look for all the Part 91 and Part 135 single pilot light jets? Are they falling out of the sky on a regular basis because they are only single pilot?

I'd like to see that comparison as well, that may give me something to do today as a break from studying for my 717 training.  Statically speaking (say per 100k flight hours), I'd bet they have an accident rate much higher than the airlines and/or 2-pilot operations.  The only data I could find in a quick search was over a decade old, but at the time, the accident rate was MUCH higher in the 91/135 world. Honest question here because I truly don't know, how many single pilot capable jets, fly with 2 pilots?  If they do fly with 2 pilots, why?  Go look in the cockpit of one of the new single-pilot rated jets, then compare that to the average airliner...technologically they're nowhere even close and frankly, the airlines aren't willing to pay for the upgrades.  Anything new will have to come with a new jet...and even our newest planes are way behind even some of the older corporate jets out there.  How many single-pilot jets are flying 7-15 hour legs to Asia or Europe?  Also, let's face it, when you're carrying passengers on scheduled air carrier service, you face a lot more scrutiny than the average light jet carrier.  If a 737 crashes with 180 average Americans onboard, it's much bigger event than if the multi-millionaire and 5 of his cronies crash on their way to ski Breck.

What it all comes down to is cost.  How much is it going to cost the airline vs the status quo.  Right now, I'm guessing you see insurance costs go up.  Infrastructure needed for such operations would be costly.  The cost to retrofit our current jets would likely be prohibitive...we're parking 717s because they don't want to pay for an avionics upgrade. The pilot "shortage" as always, is severely overblown.  Speaking of pilot, I don't really see their costs going down with even single-pilot.  You won't be able to fly the schedules we fly with single pilot, so that alone may require more pilots than we have now.  Let's not kid ourselves, everything has a price, so if you expect me to fly by myself, then you'll have to pay me a lot more than I'm paid now, and again, you'd have to fly me a lot less per day.

I'd bet it will be 2 pilots until it's no pilots...I'd doubt we see single pilot.  I could see them pushing to reduce crew augmentation on long haul flights. 3 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, etc...

I have a friend who was a corporate pilot (now retired) who racked up 10,000 single pilot hours, in a Cessna Citation (they had some type of waiver for it).  But that was over a 20+ year period, and he averaged about 40 hours/month.  Some months 10 hours, and some months 70.  But it was a primo corporate job, and the company treated him very well.  Definitely not a slave driver situation.

As for me, I'm darn glad to be out of the flying business, and haven't missed it for one second.

To the extent that you can shed light on this (perhaps even without answering this as a direct questions about the above...), what do you see as the biggest threat to UAV mishaps?

Are we talking stall spin in the pattern type stuff, lost comms, CFIT, ground taxi accidents, etc.?

Not on a regular basis, but the stats are much, much worse on a per hour basis.     I don’t think most people understand how incredibly safe airline travel truly is.  

Fwiw, single pilot Corporate flying is a 100% different beast than airline flying.    Simpler in some ways, and more complicated in others.   It’s not really the size or speed of the airplane either.  
I’d fly SP Pt.91 no worries, but I wouldn’t want to do it Pt. 121.  

It’ll happen of course, but not with our current crop of airplanes.   20-30 years out, at least.

The insurance cost alone on a single pilot Kingair or Citation jet is at least $40k per year more than dual pilots.

Having watched two UAV crashes happen in the sandbox, no way would I ever expect that pilot less airliners will ever happen. To verify the cost of one is going to be cheaper than two would require a lot more study and improvement in technology.

Don't underestimate the stupidity of airline management. NWA paid more to convert 747-300's with the new P&W 4000 motors (creating the B747-400) into two pilot vs three than the savings expected during the life cycle of the airplane. Not just in crew staffing, but also the flight/duty time limits ran the cost up further than 2 vs 3 on the flight deck.

One member here threatened to punch me for saying that.


I called this nearly 10 years ago.

My 2nd grader will see single-pilot GCS backed 121 operations by the time he finishes grad school.

Why?

Well, I mean, job protectionism?

In for answers to this post. Fascinating thread.

Believe it or not I can understand!

I'm not in that community, just been deployed on multiple occasions where I got to witness/fly over quite a few UAV crashes.  Hell, they crashed 4 in a 3 week period on one of those trips.  A different time, the U.S. almost got kicked off a base because we crashed so many UAVs on/around their airport (another poster on here knows what I'm talking about).  Just from my casual observations, they appear to mostly be in the terminal environment.  I won't speculate on the others as that's not my wheel house.



Lol, that's a bit excessive and a terrible way to debate .  




2 decades from now...maybe.  By then, I'll either not care (not to say I wouldn't fight for jobs) or will be happy to take one of those ground positions where I can be home every night...even if it were a pay cut.  But honestly, if they did do that and I was flying, our pay rate would need to increase and we'd need to fly less/work less hours/day.




They want to keep their livelihood.  Lots of people are calling to get "physically on the aircraft" (or similar) added to the section of their contract that states how many pilots are needed.

In my experience it’s a combination of inadequate training, human factors and occasionally mechanical single points of failure.  The same things that crash manned aircraft, crash unmanned aircraft.

Also, one of the most difficult lessons I had to learn was to suicide the aircraft in the event of certain failures.

They are not held to the same airworthiness requirements as manned aircraft, operators are frequently very inexperienced and often not even pilots, they are technically intensive to support(data links, ground equipment, etc), and without people in danger they often do not get a similar level of command scrutiny.  

Is that the long way of saying they break a lot and the people flying them frequently crash?

Hmmm...so the question is: can we apply the rigor of Part 121 to single pilot op's and achieve the same results as two pilot op's? Assuming appropriate technology, of course (but not ground controlled nonsense).

This has come up here before....   I say no.  The bureaucracy will not allow the death of a pilot to cause a major air disaster.  

I believe government will require any single pilot commercial passenger operations to have the capability to control and land the plane from the ground.  Pilots dying in flight is not unheard of, each Time it has happened it would have been a major disaster if dead guy was single pilot with no ground control capability.

Yep. That’s a given.   It’ll have a ground controller, one pilot, and a Pitbull.  
Won’t be for a long, long time.

It's a long way of saying, we don't particularly care if a few of them crash. Unlike manned aircraft.

The future is now, folks, with this now certified on three aircraft already. No ground control nonsense required. The FA can push the button!

People flying them while surfing Arfcom.

Not that I'd ever do that.

The new computerized Boeing's and Airbuses have only a human and a dog in the cockpit.
The dog is there to bite the human if he tries to touch any of the controls,
the Human is there to feed the dog.

Government, bureaucracy, insurance and of course cost is what I think will keep this from happening anytime soon.  



That's an awesome system and is definitely one of the many thing needed to attain reduce pilot ops.  But right now that has some limitations that he government will just not allow on airliners.  I think the day is coming, I just think that day is way off.

I don't see empty cockpits happening in my lifetime, certainly not my career. The challenges of integrating autonomous aircraft with non-autonomous are massive. Not to mention the trust the public will have to have in the systems. I sure as hell don't trust just the computer. I want a butt in that seat.

Wrong on both counts, especially the “public trust” portion.

If you sold tickets today that were $20 cheaper, telling the consumer they were choosing an autonomous aircraft they’d sell out.

Not because it’s cool or high tech, but because they are saving $20.

I used to believe that, however after last year I'd say maybe not.  I've seen by numerous people who I thought understood risk and statistics loose out on money do to being scared.
People still clap sometimes when airplanes land, and have an unnatural fear of flying.  Also, integration with vfr manned traffic will be a challenge.  They still require chase on military drones flying below 180 (at least here).  They can't just take off and go, I suspect it will happen but it has been scrutinized heavily.  It will be much easier than integrating with cars (manned and unmanned), but there will be challenges.

For an honest answer, in my experience (mostly smaller systems) these are what seems to be the majority of crash issues:

1. Engine failure (likely the vast majority)

In no particular order:

2. GPS problems (especially on landing)

3. Lost comms (generally lost comms automatically bring the aircraft near enough for secondary communications to be restored, but sometimes failures just happen and you can't get link again)

4. Pilot error including CFIT, comm problems, failure to recognize issues, bad CRM, bad training, complacency, etc

5. Mechanical/maintenance issues. These tend to be fairly rare with a competent maintenance crew, though I recently had an engine out due to a failure from factory assembly (not our maintainer's fault). I also had a crash years ago due to a stuck servo that I had noted before the flight but was told it was fine

Most programs I've dealt with have CRAAAAAAP training programs and the schoolhouses rely far too much on downrange training from burned out operators that don't care any more.

So you are saying that there is already a template of what not to do for the airlines/freight carriers to follow?  

Although it sounds like some of those issues are simply significant technological problems inherent in UAV flying that may be acceptable risks when flying over deserts and enemy territory.

Everyone loves to use that line, but unless you're talking the Spirit/Allegiant crowd, that's not necessarily the case.  DAL has LOTS of data proving that people are willing to pay as much as a 15-20% premium for what they perceive to be better service.  This is especially true for business travelers and millennials, which is why you see lots of capital being spent on updated cabins and in seat entertainment (even on the old jalopies).  The people skimping on $20 dollars, headed to Myrtle beach are not the money makers.  

Now will the younger/future generations be more and more OK with automation, for sure.  So I'm not so sure the "trust" argument will hold much water as we move forward and the younger generations continue to grow in an automated society.  For my generation (mid-late 30s) and older, they'll want at least one pilot in the jet with them.  Especially if the unions and other interest groups go on the offensive with scare campaigns.  Also, everyone assumes that taking a pilot out of the jet will be the cheaper option, which I don't believe will be the case.

I mean, in the US, we still have multiple people on freight trains.  They technology is there (I believe Australia does it) to be fully automated, yet we still have people driving them...on a set (non-moving) rail system.    

The psychological leap has already been made. We put our hands in the lives of machines. As the latest generation matures they won’t even bat an eye.

Once Elon starts launching his low earth orbit commsats it will become much cheaper to delete one of the pilots from the cockpit.  

Can we start with USB charging ports at each seat please?  LOL

I can see a significant challenge being managing VFR traffic. Yesterday was only a moderately busy day (clear, but hazy with calm winds) and I heard commercial and business traffic being given traffic alerts as they came in for the visual. That won’t be an issue on 800’ days.

I had a friend ask me why I was cruising at 6,500’ against a 22 knot headwind.  My response was to stay above the sight seeing traffic 3,000’ and below.  They may have been on CTAF but which of several nearby airports?

I have dealt with traffic above 5,000’ before and they weren’t talking to anyone who mattered at that altitude. One pilot was even nice enough to head straight toward me at the wrong altitude for direction.  I was watching them and ATC and I decided at about the same time to turn me away from them.

I know ATC doesn’t like to hear “looking for traffic but I have it on ADS-B.”  But at least it shows some awareness of where the conflicting traffic could by while we look out the window.

Is every UAV airliner going to have a pilot in a conex box watching to see where random VFR traffic is going on approach?  There won’t be any out the window visuals in that instance, which means a lot of preemptive turns.

Put me down for the “I like my pilot in the airplane” side of this debate.

Germanwings airline already inadvertently tried single pilot testing and the results showed spectacular failure

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32072220#:~:text=Andreas%20Lubitz%2C%20the%20young%20co,started%20flying%20as%20a%20teenager

Obviously, this is hyperbole, but maybe, maybe I get on a short haul flight with one pilot. If the pilot looks sane, sober, and rested.

The only "plane" I'm getting on without a pilot is the drone carrying my ashes to spread over the ocean.

As to the comment about paying $20 less to have no pilot, I respectfully disagree.

I'd pay $20 more to have decent (real access) wifi and/or good USB ports on a flight of 2-3 hours or more.

I won't get on a plane without a pilot for any price.  Even free.

Would I pay the premium for a piloted flight? Of course.

It's odd that you seem to focus on the psychological and technical issues, when there are other issues which are just as big that must be addressed before autonomous 121 becomes a widespread thing:

1) Legislation.   Certification standards for not only autonomous aircraft, but also the infrastructure that they will require.   And that infrastructure won't be cheap, which brings us to the next item.
2) Budgeting.  The infrastructure that autonomous 121 will require may be crazy expensive in some cases, and may be cheap in others, but in no case will it be free.  And none of it exists yet.
3) Operating costs.   Will it actually be cheaper to have autonomous 121 airliners?   Maybe for long haul international, but it's hard to see how the equipment requirements, certifications, and so on will be cheaper that putting two pilots up front on anything else in the forseeable future.    As an example today, autoland is an option for EMB-175s but many that leave Embraer do not include that option because of not only purchase but also ongoing maintenance and certification costs.  

I agree with the other posters who have said this will happen, but not in my career and maybe not even in my lifetime.  

Ask any A320 pilot what his perception of automation is.

FAR higher insurance and accident rates.

Many 135 operators are running CE-525s for example two pilot for the insurance reason alone.

Now, how much of the single pilot risk is due to non-professionally flown aircraft (and 100 other factors) is up for debate. However, the data for accidents/incidents avoided due to multiple humans in the loop is pretty sparse or non-compelling, as well.

I tend agree with this analysis, for all the reasons shown.

The Euros are already pushing for changes to long haul crew augmentation as they are shuttering their aviation colleges due to COVID. They are looking at the down stream effects of that and ARE worried about a pilot shortage, though its completely self-inflicted.

The HN was STILL butthurt about it, and rightly so.

Wow, they can't get stuff to the right place on the ground.

Now they want to take it to the air to try?

If you live near an airport, should you be looking to move?

Just joking.  Should be okay for shorter flights if they can get a computer to monitor more of the stuff that is currently taking the pilot's attention off keeping it in the air.

If they can make all that work, how long will it be till the pilot is just baby sitting the computer?  How long after that till no baby sitter is needed?

The data link security assumptions baked into that pie are pretty immense. This at a time that encryption is looking more tenuous, and not less. How many nations are going to be cool with a heavily encrypted data link driving a massive bomb over their capital/critical infrastructure from 12 time zones away that they have no means of controlling?

Very few machines we entrust our lives to such an extent right now.  Either way, the psychological piece is just one of many obstacles.  



Ya, I don't doubt that system will provide some great things.  I just think it will take a LONG time to hit the safety gates (that haven't even be created yet), and a while before the cost of going that way will be cheaper than just keeping the extra pilot.  I mean, we're parking jets because it's too expensive to add some basic GPS technology.  




Also, this!  I'm guessing insurance increases alone would negate the cost savings of of taking one of the pilots out of the cockpit.

That's the B. Ben Baldanza theory of ultimate price elasticity, and the reality is that there are ultimate limits to price elasticity when you run a very unreliable airline, even if you're practically giving tickets away.

People should take heed of Spirit's success as their operational metrics improve. They are not independent variables.

This is part of the cabin refurbishments I mentioned earlier.  It's also part of the reasons people will pay a little extra.  Nearly every plane in our fleet now has USBs at every seat...especially if it has seat back entertainment.  




I could be wrong, but I think some of those nations already have a crew augmentation rate less than ours.  Aside from FAR/legal requirements, it would take a change to our contracts.  Having done a fair amount of long hual international, I'm not so sure I'd be about less crew augmentation.  Having that 3rd pilot has been a savor many times.




LOL, I don't doubt it.  Can't interrupt that khat train from getting in!

Timely article talking about this very subject.