Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

[Buddy Spike]

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Could be just a bit hefty.  

So you take one pilot out of the cockpit and then what?  Put a fare paying passenger up there with him/her?  The only way this makes financial sense (ultimately) is to take the space formerly occupied by the FO and re-purpose it for revenue paying passengers which is just a huge not gonna happen for any Aviation Authority in the world.  Just a bit of a security risk...

Which takes you back to the reality that this really could only happen in an airliner purposely designed for single pilot on-board ops. Look at the layout of the forward cabin / FA station / flight deck lof a 737, 320, CRJ, etc. aircraft, you would have to extensively remodel it to put more meat in new seats to make it worth the while and likely a very pricey remodel, recertification, new insurance costs, new training for all the crew with the loss of the FO, etc... and how long will that payback period be?  How long can you afford to have that plane out of service for this remodel?  

If you built a single pilot airliner, how do you handle departing your flight station for physiological needs?  What if HAL goes TU and you are now really single point of failure?  There is a reason why we have safety standards in cars, even though we could build them cheaper if we said you don't need seat belts, airbags, brake lights, etc... Greed from the corner office needs a reality check that operations has an associated cost that you can't cut to the bone and expect the same level of service or safety.

Rant - Complete (P, CP)

 

You don't need two assholes up front as it is.  Half of the problem on a 73 is the terrible PVI and Boeing's insistence that "Pilots have to flip switches" and panels from the 1960s.  You can fly and manage the plane from the left seat.  (Oh the horror, the pilot flying might actually have to spin his own heading bug or raise the gear by himself!)

I don't get why you think that extra seat would have to be converted to anything.  Lots of aircraft have two seats up front but can be flown single pilot.  It's not about adding another $150 on the flight, but reducing the labor costs of that extra pilot - which airlines would love.

As for being a single point of failure, I think that's like the need for Navigators and Flight engineers.  The automation has overcome the need.  I think it's a lot more likely that we'll see single pilot ops than full autonomous drone passenger ops, though.  People need that warm-fuzzy that some human is in control up front.  

[ViperStud]

There is risk in having only humans in the loop (EgyptAir, Germanwings), but there is a different kind of risk having a dataling that can no-shit take over. Think any state-sponsored group could crack the datalink?

i know this is James Bond shit, but think of a well-intentioned pilot in the aircraft being taken out of the loop while the fail-safe datalink "saves the day."  Didn't we learn shit from 2001 and the Terminator movies?

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

You don't need two assholes up front as it is.  Half of the problem on a 73 is the terrible PVI and Boeing's insistence that "Pilots have to flip switches" and panels from the 1960s.  You can fly and manage the plane from the left seat.  (Oh the horror, the pilot flying might actually have to spin his own heading bug or raise the gear by himself!)

I don't get why you think that extra seat would have to be converted to anything.  Lots of aircraft have two seats up front but can be flown single pilot.  It's not about adding another $150 on the flight, but reducing the labor costs of that extra pilot - which airlines would love.

As for being a single point of failure, I think that's like the need for Navigators and Flight engineers.  The automation has overcome the need.  I think it's a lot more likely that we'll see single pilot ops than full autonomous drone passenger ops, though.  People need that warm-fuzzy that some human is in control up front.  

Will have to agree to disagree.  

The two place modern cockpit is not necessarily for workload reduction (a properly trained crew appropriately using the systems and automation can do that) but it's primarily workload verification. 

With hundreds of souls sitting just behind the controls, two well trained, qualified pilots reduce the risk rather than relying on only one, IMO.  

You may be right on the automation reducing the need but I would argue it is still needed.  Other communities rely on the two person concept - surgical teams for example - it's a sound concept that does impose an additional but again IMO necessary cost.

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Inertia17]

2 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

You don't need two assholes up front as it is.  Half of the problem on a 73 is the terrible PVI and Boeing's insistence that "Pilots have to flip switches" and panels from the 1960s.  You can fly and manage the plane from the left seat.  (Oh the horror, the pilot flying might actually have to spin his own heading bug or raise the gear by himself!)

I don't get why you think that extra seat would have to be converted to anything.  Lots of aircraft have two seats up front but can be flown single pilot.  It's not about adding another $150 on the flight, but reducing the labor costs of that extra pilot - which airlines would love.

As for being a single point of failure, I think that's like the need for Navigators and Flight engineers.  The automation has overcome the need.  I think it's a lot more likely that we'll see single pilot ops than full autonomous drone passenger ops, though.  People need that warm-fuzzy that some human is in control up front.  

Unless the one remaining asshole has a serious medical issue arise leaving them no longer able to fly the aircraft. Then I guess everyone is just SOL in the case of current tech.

[Buddy Spike]

57 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Will have to agree to disagree.  

The two place modern cockpit is not necessarily for workload reduction (a properly trained crew appropriately using the systems and automation can do that) but it's primarily workload verification. 

With hundreds of souls sitting just behind the controls, two well trained, qualified pilots reduce the risk rather than relying on only one, IMO.  

You may be right on the automation reducing the need but I would argue it is still needed.  Other communities rely on the two person concept - surgical teams for example - it's a sound concept that does impose an additional but again IMO necessary cost.

 

And people said we'd always need navs or engineers too.  Ask any fighter guy if he really thinks it takes two people to fly these aircraft.  Most of the "crew coordination" is just busy work.  

44 minutes ago, Inertia17 said:

Unless the one remaining asshole has a serious medical issue arise leaving them no longer able to fly the aircraft. Then I guess everyone is just SOL in the case of current tech.

I'd guess that Class 1 Medical standards would also be higher for such an environment, but isn't that the point of the ground datalink/operator in the event of an emergency?  Or don't you think the software could handle it?  How many aircraft already have autoland installed?

Hell, look at the A350.  I checked out the sim a few weeks back and was talking to one of the instructors practicing.  He told me that in the event of a cabin pressurization event, the aircraft can set a timer and if no response by the pilots, it will automatically descend (using known terrain in the area) down and fly depressurization routes.  It's not a logical leap that if the single pilot were to forget to do an ACARS update within a reasonable amount of time, the aircraft could squawk 7700, send a message to the company, and fly a Cat III autoland to a full stop where fire trucks and EMS would be waiting. 

More and more, that human body up front is just becoming an insurance policy vs the primary manipulator of the controls. 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Buddy Spike

[Inertia17]

38 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

I'd guess that Class 1 Medical standards would also be higher for such an environment, but isn't that the point of the ground datalink/operator in the event of an emergency?  Or don't you think the software could handle it?  How many aircraft already have autoland installed?

Hell, look at the A350.  I checked out the sim a few weeks back and was talking to one of the instructors practicing.  He told me that in the event of a cabin pressurization event, the aircraft can set a timer and if no response by the pilots, it will automatically descend (using known terrain in the area) down and fly depressurization routes.  It's not a logical leap that if the single pilot were to forget to do an ACARS update within a reasonable amount of time, the aircraft could squawk 7700, send a message to the company, and fly a Cat III autoland to a full stop where fire trucks and EMS would be waiting. 

More and more, that human body up front is just becoming an insurance policy vs the primary manipulator of the controls.

While it is true that the capability is there on some of the newer aircraft, it is when it stops working that is the problem. The more cuts you make, the more holes you find in your cheese. How many jets have you stepped to that don't have issues? The human on board still has greater capability to deal with situations that aren't quite textbook.

I am not saying that single pilot ops won't happen, but I don't think the tech is where it needs to be yet to justify the increased risk.

[Buddy Spike]

Just now, Inertia17 said:

While it is true that the capability is there on some of the newer aircraft, it is when it stops working that is the problem. The more cuts you make, the more holes you find in your cheese. How many jets have you stepped to that don't have issues? The human on board still has greater capability to deal with situations that aren't quite textbook.

I am not saying that single pilot ops won't happen, but I don't think the tech is where it needs to be yet to justify the increased risk.

Single pilot? Cat III Autoland is the contingency.  You mentioned a specific scenario in which the pilot is incapacitated.  The technology exists now, and in some cases, is just a matter of coding.  

[Duck]

Part of moving to the left seat is experience and wisdom. I just don't see how an airline gets a guy spun up to single-seat qualified as a new hire. Possible? Absolutely.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

52 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

And people said we'd always need navs or engineers too.  Ask any fighter guy if he really thinks it takes two people to fly these aircraft.  Most of the "crew coordination" is just busy work.  

Hmmm - I think that is not a direct analogy.  The FE and the NAV were not in command of the aircraft, that has been and should remain the prerogative of the pilot with the back up of his/her Co/FO for a large, purposely built for crew, aircraft. 

Those positions were automated as their functions/responsibilities were mainly technical in nature and not subjective (sometimes) like the Pilot in Command's where they encounter situations in combination or never addressed by the T.O. or POH and they must call upon the sum of their experience, knowledge and abilities to deal with them.

Their is a nuance to human vs machine intelligence that has yet to be adequately coded, the ability to sense context and act accordingly.  The conditions may warrant action but how is that action to be taken, immediately or after a few seconds if that overall improves the situation?  AI may one day make the better mouse trap and pilot but not yet.

[Inertia17]

5 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

Single pilot? Cat III Autoland is the contingency.  You mentioned a specific scenario in which the pilot is incapacitated.  The technology exists now, and in some cases, is just a matter of coding.  

Yes, but if there is only one pilot (incap), and your contingency shits the bed, then you are SOL. Without someone there to crosscheck it is working correctly (radar altimeter is out, false glideslope etc), I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. It is an added level of risk, that I don't believe is worth taking with 300+ people in the back.

Now if you have multiple systems that can perform such a function giving you redundancy, then that risk factor for single pilot might be at a more acceptable level.

This is all personal opinion of course, I could be way off track.

[Buddy Spike]

47 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Hmmm - I think that is not a direct analogy.  The FE and the NAV were not in command of the aircraft, that has been and should remain the prerogative of the pilot with the back up of his/her Co/FO for a large, purposely built for crew, aircraft. 

Those positions were automated as their functions/responsibilities were mainly technical in nature and not subjective (sometimes) like the Pilot in Command's where they encounter situations in combination or never addressed by the T.O. or POH and they must call upon the sum of their experience, knowledge and abilities to deal with them.

Their is a nuance to human vs machine intelligence that has yet to be adequately coded, the ability to sense context and act accordingly.  The conditions may warrant action but how is that action to be taken, immediately or after a few seconds if that overall improves the situation?  AI may one day make the better mouse trap and pilot but not yet.

How is it any different than a single seat fighter or an eclipse jet or other single-pilot jet?  We're talking point A to point B in an aircraft that's already 85% automated

 

47 minutes ago, Inertia17 said:

Yes, but if there is only one pilot (incap), and your contingency shits the bed, then you are SOL. Without someone there to crosscheck it is working correctly (radar altimeter is out, false glideslope etc), I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. It is an added level of risk, that I don't believe is worth taking with 300+ people in the back.

Now if you have multiple systems that can perform such a function giving you redundancy, then that risk factor for single pilot might be at a more acceptable level.

This is all personal opinion of course, I could be way off track.

.  CAT III Autoland already requires dual autopilot certification.  It exists now.  

[Inertia17]

2 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

.  CAT III Autoland already requires dual autopilot certification.  It exists now.  

To clarify, I was referring to an additional system that is not the CAT III.

The system is not fool proof, Turkish Airlines (Flight 1951, 2009) could attest to that.

[Buddy Spike]

2 minutes ago, Inertia17 said:

To clarify, I was referring to an additional system that is not the CAT III.

The system is not fool proof, Turkish Airlines (Flight 1951, 2009) could attest to that.

No system is foolproof. The determining factor will be risk mitigation for the insurance nerds to say that the cost savings of half the pilot labor force outweighs the risk.  My point being that the technology exists right now to have a redundancy in place in case the single pilot is incapacitated.  It's not a stretch by any means.  

[brabus]

Not an airline guy with a dog in this fight, but the medical "drop dead" scenario is such a small risk...how many billions of single seat flight hours point A to B have occurred without the pilot having a heart attack, head exploding, etc?  The thought process of another set of eyes/brain to stop a bad situation/decision is probably a better argument, but then again for every single seat accident, I can probably point to a two-pilot accident.  With that said, and the systems Buddy talks about exist already, why is it so hard to believe single pilot airliners are a real possibility?  It certainly is far more feasible/acceptable/safe than going the 100% RPA route.

[Clark Griswold]

43 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

How is it any different than a single seat fighter or an eclipse jet or other single-pilot jet?  We're talking point A to point B in an aircraft that's already 85% automated

It's not a problem when everything is going to plan, there are no problems, when that's not the case, that's the problem.

If in this hypothetical aircraft you replace one human with a super autopilot certifiable to replace a qualified crew member, what's the cost?  It would not surprise me that it would run 2 million (WAG) or more when you factor in everything required to be that reliable, predictable and redundant.  That 2 million (plus whatever MX required during its operational life) would also need to be an LRU or the aircraft revertible to a two place crew if HAL is TU.  

This concept is potentially possible but IMO when you consider the totality of risk, cost, technical requirements and effect on the aviation enterprise, the benefits are actually minimal.

You raise good points, I think mine are valid also, I will agree to disagree.

But I have to ask, you may be single seat in most fighters, but are you ever alone?  I would wager in training and operations, 99.9% of the time you are at least in a two ship, you may not have someone else in the cockpit but you have someone on the wing, you work as a team, just like crew aircraft.

[Buddy Spike]

Just now, Clark Griswold said:

It's not a problem when everything is going to plan, there are no problems, when that's not the case, that's the problem.

If in this hypothetical aircraft you replace one human with a super autopilot certifiable to replace a qualified crew member, what's the cost?  It would not surprise me that it would run 2 million (WAG) or more when you factor in everything required to be that reliable, predictable and redundant.  That 2 million (plus whatever MX required during its operational life) would also need to be an LRU or the aircraft revertible to a two place crew if HAL is TU.  

This concept is potentially possible but IMO when you consider the totality of risk, cost, technical requirements and effect on the aviation enterprise, the benefits are actually minimal.

You raise good points, I think mine are valid also, I will agree to disagree.

But I have to ask, you may be single seat in most fighters, but are you ever alone?  I would wager in training and operations, 99.9% of the time you are at least in a two ship, you may not have someone else in the cockpit but you have someone on the wing, you work as a team, just like crew aircraft.

Yes.  You're alone on plenty of sorties and lots of cross countries in a fighter (the exact mission we're talking about here).

Even single pilot in an airliner, are you alone with ACARS and modern comms to call back to ops/mx?  

[Jaded]

 

33 minutes ago, brabus said:

Not an airline guy with a dog in this fight, but the medical "drop dead" scenario is such a small risk...how many billions of single seat flight hours point A to B have occurred without the pilot having a heart attack, head exploding, etc?  The thought process of another set of eyes/brain to stop a bad situation/decision is probably a better argument, but then again for every single seat accident, I can probably point to a two-pilot accident.  With that said, and the systems Buddy talks about exist already, why is it so hard to believe single pilot airliners are a real possibility?  It certainly is far more feasible/acceptable/safe than going the 100% RPA route.

Actually, I think there have been several instances of a pilot having a life threatening problem in the cockpit. Heart attack, stroke, etc. Remember you're talking about 60+ year old guys who often haven't lived the most healthy lifestyles. The fact that you don't hear more about it is due to the second pilot being there to "save the day," and turn the situation into a non-issue.

[Clark Griswold]

26 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

Yes.  You're alone on plenty of sorties and lots of cross countries in a fighter (the exact mission we're talking about here).

Even single pilot in an airliner, are you alone with ACARS and modern comms to call back to ops/mx?  

No but the nightmare scenario(s) we are talking about where the AC is incapacitated, would he/she be able to call for help?  Also, when and to what level are you going to let the AI Co/FO override the AC?  Who's really flying the jet?  When are you going to override the AI Co/FO?  

It is not the technical feasibility I argue against, it is the squirming can of worms it opens that IMO are not worth the potential savings, which I doubt the Captain would actually see any of in his/her paycheck. 

I feel like the people pushing this are like Chris Rock in this scene from "I'm gonna git you sucka"

How much more can you cut and still have the same service?  Why stop at just one pilot?  Just put vending machines in lieu of food service by FAs.  Sweet talk the FAA on up'ing the number of PAX per FA to 38 from 19, save a buck there too.  At some point, you have to accept costs commensurate with the level of service expected / legally / morally required.

[Danny Noonin]

Not an airline guy with a dog in this fight, but the medical "drop dead" scenario is such a small risk...how many billions of single seat flight hours point A to B have occurred without the pilot having a heart attack, head exploding

Absurd comparison.

How many single seat fighter guys are 45 years old let alone 60-65 years old? I get several emails a month telling me about dudes who work at my company that died. Not retirees, current pilots who died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[viper154]

10 hours ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

I'm no computer guy but wouldn't it be "easy" to hack into a planes computers and do whatever you want with it if there were no pilots on board?

If your trolling then touche, you got me. If your serious, then no. We do it every day with 70 RPA caps. Encrypted datalinks.   

[TMILL]

If your trolling then touche, you got me. If your serious, then no. We do it every day with 70 RPA caps. Encrypted datalinks.   

Except for "Iran taking control of one"...(I never heard the end of that one so it may be more fiction then fact.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

Absurd comparison.

How many single seat fighter guys are 45 years old let alone 60-65 years old? I get several emails a month telling me about dudes who work at my company that died. Not retirees, current pilots who died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid point. 

[faipmafiaofficial]

7 hours ago, TMILL said:

 

Except for "Iran taking control of one"...(I never heard the end of that one so it may be more fiction then fact.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/04/how-hack-military-drone/111391/

Technology would have to change all the time to stay ahead of hackers. Seems like it's way easier to just keep the doors locked and put pilots in the seat. 

 

[Champ Kind]

Fascinating discussion.

Question for the RPA guys and airline guys:  how much labor cost savings could we really expect in a single-pilot commercial model considering the duty day rules that would inevitably change and the fact that those central ground control/monitoring stations being discussed would have to be staffed by trained pilots, yes?  

Someone else earlier in the thread made a great point...  airlines are recapitalizing as we speak.  This is all probably a moot point for 30ish years until they squeeze every ounce of life out of these new airplanes they are getting (reference the lifespan of the Mad Dogs still flying around).  

[Buddy Spike]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

No but the nightmare scenario(s) we are talking about where the AC is incapacitated, would he/she be able to call for help?  Also, when and to what level are you going to let the AI Co/FO override the AC?  Who's really flying the jet?  When are you going to override the AI Co/FO?  

It is not the technical feasibility I argue against, it is the squirming can of worms it opens that IMO are not worth the potential savings, which I doubt the Captain would actually see any of in his/her paycheck. 

I feel like the people pushing this are like Chris Rock in this scene from "I'm gonna git you sucka"

How much more can you cut and still have the same service?  Why stop at just one pilot?  Just put vending machines in lieu of food service by FAs.  Sweet talk the FAA on up'ing the number of PAX per FA to 38 from 19, save a buck there too.  At some point, you have to accept costs commensurate with the level of service expected / legally / morally required.

PIC is incapacitated + aircraft reaches clearance limit fix or fails to make an ACARS position report = autopilot continues either to destination or nearest suitable divert and flies a CAT III autoland to waiting Fire/Rescue.  I'm not sure why you think this is such a logical leap.  You do realize that 90% of airline flying is all autopilot these days, right?

And the savings for a single pilot fleet are basically cutting the pilot labor force in half.  I'm sure AA or DAL or UAL would love to keep flying the same volume while cutting their labor costs.  

As an airline guy, I don't like it either, but to say it's not realistic is a bit short-sighted IMO.  FOs are just not as important as we'd like to believe.