Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By Oldfart
#1853954
Not "Single pilot Ops", but UK airlines are now approved for "controlled rest", for short periods during two pilot ops in the cruise. While one pilot is napping, the operating pilot maintains frequent comms with the cabin crew, and vice versa. Far more satisfactory than both pilots nodding off on long, perhaps night, cruise sectors.
Single pilot operation ,is of course frequently practised in emergency crew incapacitation situations in the sim.
By A4 Pacific
#1853959
Single pilot operation ,is of course frequently practised in emergency crew incapacitation situations in the sim.


I think everybody, especially accountants and management knows these machines can be flown by one person. (Even if it does reduce safety margins!) I just haven’t yet met anyone who can do it in their sleep.
By As I CFIT
#1853965
F70100 wrote:I think the military have already used this technique; I seem to remember reading that Nimrod sub hunters would shut a couple of engines down to increase their endurance…


Shutting a couple of engines down on an A350 would shorten the flight rather than extend it!

Oldfart wrote:Not "Single pilot Ops", but UK airlines are now approved for "controlled rest", for short periods during two pilot ops in the cruise.


Controlled rest is a useful utility but my only gripe is that it always seems to evoke the (funny-ish the first time you hear it) reference of one engaging in an extended scan of the overhead panel.
User avatar
By Human Factor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853974
Oldfart wrote:Not "Single pilot Ops", but UK airlines are now approved for "controlled rest", for short periods during two pilot ops in the cruise. While one pilot is napping, the operating pilot maintains frequent comms with the cabin crew, and vice versa. Far more satisfactory than both pilots nodding off on long, perhaps night, cruise sectors.
Single pilot operation ,is of course frequently practised in emergency crew incapacitation situations in the sim.


A big airline near you has had this approved for many years. :D
User avatar
By Josh
#1853981
Lufthansa were asked to be involved in this project and declined on safety grounds. The only surprise is it’s Cathay not Emirates or Qatar trying to get this one approved.

I think this is poorly thought through on a number of levels for many reasons, some of which are described above. Others relate to the numerous situations related to the opinionated cargo or other things going on in the cabin that would require 2 bums on seats up front. What do you do then? Divert as the crew haven’t achieved the required rest? Doesn’t take many diversions before you’ve paid the salary of those you were hoping not to employ any more.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853989
This all seems to be a very odd route to eventually saving pilot costs.

I think it's fairly clear that there's no long term future of human pilots sitting at the front of the aeroplanes that ferry people around from place to place. AI and automation will eventually get so good that they will out-perform humans on every metric, with no startle delay to compromise the handling of in-flight emergencies.

The question is, how to get there. You can halve pilot costs with current tech, at the cost of additional risk to both actual flight safety and public relations. But you can't go any further - current CAT tech needs at least one human, so going single pilot ops (except possibly for short haul cargo), is a dead end.

Whereas, we already have military pilots flying drone attack missions from a comfy seat back at base. And we already have AI that can outperform FJ combat pilots.

Couple the two together, and it will lead to one pilot being able to manage several flights from the same seat depending on the scheduling - effectively whether the busy bits associated with takeoff and landing coincide - and as the AI gets better and ATC gets more automated, the number of pilots required will diminish - ultimately to zero - in a scalable way.

When one pilot approaches the end of a shift, the next one arrives, there's a handover. Simples.

It will take longer to achieve than 2025, but it seems more like a roadmap to a solution to me.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1853997
Whereas, we already have military pilots flying drone attack missions from a comfy seat back at base. And we already have AI that can outperform FJ combat pilots.


The difference being of course that neither of those ‘remotely piloted’ platforms are accommodating any humans. Never mind hundreds of them! All of whom can choose which form of piloting they prefer!
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853999
A4 Pacific wrote:
Whereas, we already have military pilots flying drone attack missions from a comfy seat back at base. And we already have AI that can outperform FJ combat pilots.


The difference being of course that neither of those ‘remotely piloted’ platforms are accommodating any humans. Never mind hundreds of them! All of whom can choose which form of piloting they prefer!

Yep. But people already get on driverless trains. And they'll get used to driverless cars. And once there's a decent safety record with pilotless cargo aircraft, they'll start getting on pilotless passenger aircraft.

Of course they will - it'll be cheaper!
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By As I CFIT
#1854015
Ethically, I don’t know how a remote human-controlled passenger aircraft can be justified. If a fallible human is to be in control then they should be on-board, facing the same jeopardy as the other occupants. On-board pilots will be required until the introduction of autonomous passenger aircraft. That said, who would want to go to the trouble of building such a machine? When it crashes and kills hundreds at a time, which it inevitably will, the manufacturer will be irrefutably liable. Pilots unfortunately make great scapegoats, particularly when they’re dead.
Flyin'Dutch', Spooky liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1854036
Pilots unfortunately make great scapegoats, particularly when they’re dead.


I didn’t feel able to simply ‘like’ that post. (There’s too much personal ‘stuff’ involved) But that is absolutely correct. I suspect that liability will be as much a barrier as anything.
User avatar
By Charles Hunt
#1854038
Surely AI systems can only react to accurate data.

Humans I imagine have a better chance of coping when all the data is wrong. (AF 440(?) excepted). Was it BA near Singapore where an engine exploded and almost every alarm possible went off? The crew were able to keep the a/c flying and bring it down to a successful lancing.

Could AI have done that?
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1854052
Charles Hunt wrote:Surely AI systems can only react to accurate data.

Humans I imagine have a better chance of coping when all the data is wrong. (AF 440(?) excepted). Was it BA near Singapore where an engine exploded and almost every alarm possible went off? The crew were able to keep the a/c flying and bring it down to a successful lancing.

Could AI have done that?


G-JWTP wrote:Or landed in the Hudson?

Not yet. No one is claiming that it could.

But AI is getting better, and the rate at which it's getting better is accelerating. It already outperforms humans in a variety of areas, and this trend will continue.

It's a mistake to imagine that it won't be able to reinterpret flawed data better than humans. AI is not about following a programmed-in set of rules, it's about recognising patterns in the data and selecting a suitable course of action. There's no reason why errors or conflicts in the data would be any less amenable to such an approach.

It's not good enough to replace pilots yet, probably. Yet if it's already better at combat against experienced F16 pilots, I don't think it will be all that long.

Of course there are ethical and social issues that will need to be resolved along the way. But to believe that there's some kind of hard barrier that will prevent AI becoming better in nearly every field involving experience and judgement is, I'm afraid, simply a failure of imagination, or, more likely, wishful thinking.