Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Would You Fly On An Airliner With Just One Pilot?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
For sure....as long as I was the pilot.
 
If I were getting paid what a captain and F/O made combined... Id think about it.
 
From the article:


"But is the travelling public ready for single pilot commercial operations? How would you react if you knew your plane had a super-advanced autopilot and the very latest safety systems but just one pilot? What if the ticket price was cheaper?"


Thanks, EuroWeenies.


Regards,
Fr8-
 
My grandfather (who was a career PanAm FE) refuses to get on any plane with less than 4 engines and 3 pilots. Sadly, I wish that was still the industry norm.
 
geardown said:
I think Clayton Osbon severely damaged the argument for a single pilot airliner.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it may only accelerate the process. Large drones already operate pilot-less & completely untethered to the ground, delivering mail and supplies in Afghanistan.

I think the economic arguments will win the day as they always have. Safety is a buzzword that can only do so much. I think we will see cockpits with one live crew member and the other maybe sitting on the ground somewhere flying remotely. Technology is already there, now all that's missing is for the public to be sold on it and the unions to be browbeaten into accepting the new status quo. Just a matter of time I'm afraid...

The next question will be, will the public accept "No Pilot"??? Who is going to feed the dog then?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but the unions will have no say once pilotless aircraft happens. What will they do? Strike? Strikes do no good if you're being fired anyway.

Unions may slow down early adoption, but eventually pilotless aircraft will happen. It might be 200-300 years, but "never" is a long time.
 
Off hand, I can't think of any times I would have killed myself if the F/O had not been there, so if they pay me CA and FO wages - sign me up.
 
AK737FO said:
Off hand, I can't think of any times I would have killed myself if the F/O had not been there, so if they pay me CA and FO wages - sign me up.
Click to expand...

Why don't we ask your FOs that question...?


Seriously, can you think of any times your FO broke "the chain"?
 
Of course - every day. The FO or I trap a threat each and every day.
The question at hand is - if not trapped by the FO (assuming single pilot), would it have become an accident / incident / hull loss?
In other words, would I have killed myself and those behind me without the First Officers input? Or would I have trapped my error / threat in time?
In another 20 years or so, we might get to find out. Pax will love the idea if it saves them $5!
 
Hey piloting will finally be a "telecommuting" job that you can do in your undewear at home! Sign me up!
 
AK737FO said:
Off hand, I can't think of any times I would have killed myself if the F/O had not been there, so if they pay me CA and FO wages - sign me up.
Click to expand...

Ironically, wasn't it AK that had a CA suffer from a heart attack and the FO saved the day? Although this does not happen often...it does happen and now with pilots older than 60...my guess is more occurrences rather than less.

On a side note, if the Chinese can hack into our most secure computer systems and steal blueprints to our TOP SECRET military programs...I am not sure the public will be ready to read the headlines: Airliner Hacked and Remotely Flown (fill in your own end of the story).

I wouldn't buy a ticket on a single pilot or pilotless plane. Call me old fashion I guess!
 
The airplane of the future will have one pilot and a dog sitting next to the pilot.

The dog will bite the pilot if he moves to touch anything!
 
One of he proposals Iv read about would be a single pilot who is monitored by a ground based pilot .Ground guy would be following X number of flights like a drone pilot....
 
I can see this happening to cargo first. If all goes well with single pilot cargo airliners, then pax are next.
 
Insurance will never go for it in our life time. The insurance will be more than that cost of an extra pilot on board. 2 pilots has nothing to do with the one pilot being sick or dead. It has to do with subtle incapacitation and a remote controlled pilot can not recognize that fast enough.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp11629-menu-5518.htm

It takes 2 pilots to land an airplane in wind greater than 15 knots and wind shears. One to fly and the other to initiate a go around if it looks unsafe. And what about 30 to 40 knot winds and gusts and shears??? I don't think a remote controlled pilot can do it or an auto pilot yet especially into some of the short runways that airliners fly into.

Two pilots having a bad day are exponentially safer than a lone single pilot having a bad day. Anyone that flies for a living can tell you that.
 
Last edited:
Russ said:
Already happening, it's called IOE.
Click to expand...

Bullsh!t.

Most newbies can land the airplane safe enough. Most inexperienced newbies are flying airplanes that can land easily enough at most airports with plenty of runway to spare. Even the 200 hour pilots in the RJs can get it down and are better to have next to you than a remote controlled pilot in some remote building without their arse in the seat.
 
JT12345 said:
It takes 2 pilots to land an airplane in wind greater than 15 knots and wind shears. One to fly and the other to initiate a go around if it looks unsafe. And what about 30 to 40 knot winds and gusts and shears??? I don't think a remote controlled pilot can do it or an auto pilot yet especially into some of the short runways that airliners fly into.

Two pilots having a bad day are exponentially safer than a lone single pilot having a bad day. Anyone that flies for a living can tell you that.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Go purchase a subscription to Wired magazine and pay attention to what's coming in the future. We may not like it, but computers are infinitely better at flying than we are. 15 knots? Seriously? It takes two pilots cause we are so limited in capacity that we can't watch two things at once...computers can look at thousands of inputs at once. More crosswind...more aileron and opposite rudder...a simple algorithm. Aborts? We have a freaking 3-second reaction time built in after a fire bell goes off. Seriously? You think a computer needs that? Fire bell equals 3000psi to the brakes.... no reaction needed. Our cockpits are so far behind what is available right now in the real world it's not even funny. Look at the google car...it knows where it is, can interpret red lights, stop for a kid or a pet that runs in front, it can negotiate a 4 way stop when 4 cars pull in at once, negotiate construction, etc. Flying is infinitely simpler than driving as far as complexities go. Tie TCAS into autopilot...bam, no more mid-airs. It goes on and on.

We sound like every other industry that has gone away due to automation. We're too important, blah, blah, blah. It's coming. Once they show flying boxes is safer than a human at the controls then we are toast as a profession. It may not happen in 20 years....but I bet within 50 for sure.

I'm all for preserving our jobs...and will fight to keep us in the cockpit. But that has everything to do with wanting to keep my livelihood and get paid, and nothing to do with safety being more important. This industry is safer now more than anytime in the last century. That's due to automation, not in spite of it.
 
shagadelic said:
You're kidding right? Go purchase a subscription to Wired magazine and pay attention to what's coming in the future. We may not like it, but computers are infinitely better at flying than we are. 15 knots? Seriously? It takes two pilots cause we are so limited in capacity that we can't watch two things at once...computers can look at thousands of inputs at once. More crosswind...more aileron and opposite rudder...a simple algorithm. Aborts? We have a freaking 3-second reaction time built in after a fire bell goes off. Seriously? You think a computer needs that? Fire bell equals 3000psi to the brakes.... no reaction needed. Our cockpits are so far behind what is available right now in the real world it's not even funny. Look at the google car...it knows where it is, can interpret red lights, stop for a kid or a pet that runs in front, it can negotiate a 4 way stop when 4 cars pull in at once, negotiate construction, etc. Flying is infinitely simpler than driving as far as complexities go. Tie TCAS into autopilot...bam, no more mid-airs. It goes on and on.

We sound like every other industry that has gone away due to automation. We're too important, blah, blah, blah. It's coming. Once they show flying boxes is safer than a human at the controls then we are toast as a profession. It may not happen in 20 years....but I bet within 50 for sure.

I'm all for preserving our jobs...and will fight to keep us in the cockpit. But that has everything to do with wanting to keep my livelihood and get paid, and nothing to do with safety being more important. This industry is safer now more than anytime in the last century. That's due to automation, not in spite of it.
Click to expand...

I know, right?

Just out of curiosity. Why does my airplane have such strict limits on autoland?
 
Hmmmm, Hudson River and Sioux City IA are two cases where a computer would have killed everyone. Those accidents took great pilots to say " I'm not going to die today so what can I do to pull this off."
I know a lot of pilots have killed a lot of people too but I know I am not ready for this in my lifetime.
 
You would think boats would automate first. That is even simpler, but nope. Those captains and officers make more than alot of us. A feking sanitation worker in NY makes more than a lot of us and they are considrring this for airplanes. They start at 70k and average over 100k Plus pensions. Lol.

Automate the garbage pickup and then get back to me.

Gmafb
 
Last edited:
JT12345 said:
You would think boats would automate first. That is even simpler, but nope. Those captains and officers make more than alot of us. A feking sanitation worker in NY makes more than a lot of us and they are considrring this for airplanes. They start at 70k and average over 100k Plus pensions. Lol.

Automate the garbage pickup and then get back to me.

Gmafb
Click to expand...

Thats actually not a bad idea!
 
JT12345 said:
You would think boats would automate first. That is even simpler, but nope. Those captains and officers make more than alot of us. A feking sanitation worker in NY makes more than a lot of us and they are considrring this for airplanes. They start at 70k and average over 100k Plus pensions. Lol.

Automate the garbage pickup and then get back to me.

Gmafb
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I'm just looking forward to my car driving my drunk a$$ home from the bar.:beer:
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom