Industry is considering airliners with one pilot.

[quixoticguide]

Boeing says it is looking at the concept that airliners in the future might have only one pilot on board, but beyond that the company is saying little.

The concern is that the rapid expansion of the airlines is exceeding the ability to generate qualified pilots fast enough.

What may allow safe and reliable one pilot jets is cockpit technology and the concept that a "co-pilot" could be ground based, much like drone pilots sit in an office, but are in command of unmanned aerial vehicles over Pakistan/Afghanistan half a world away.

Initially, the concept is that cargo airlines could test the idea, with passenger airlines coming later. Everything is contingent on reliable back-up systems if the sole pilot on board were to ever succumb to a medical emergency.

http://www.king5.com/news/aerospace/Air ... 05311.html

[Flanker2]

I think that the system will be actually the reverse. A captain sitting on the ground and the co-pilot aboard as back-up.

It will happen, there's no doubt about it. It will further reduce the human factor as ground-based pilots can access much more information and be in direct contact with mechanics, without making mistakes and without the additional problem of fear for their own life.

Pilot shortage is not the issue, airlines just want to reduce their cost and risk. The current system is not sustainable. Just look at the Lion Air crash, where 2 pilots crashed a perfectly functional aircraft into the water for no reason other than sheer stupidity.

[sean1982]

Not really. Sheer stupidty through low training standards cause the airline wants to sve on training costs and operates a pay to fly scheme. What goes around comes around. Having 1 pilot on the ground and 1 in the air is not going to change that.

[FlightMate]

I think you are right, Sean.

If 2 pilots can crash an airliner, how would 1 not crash it?

Then I can see it coming. One pilot as back up on the ground for 1, then 2, then a whole fleet of planes.

And technical malfunctions never happen of course, like loss of coms, or the AP unable to cope with hydraulic or electrical problems.

I can see how a lot of crashes could have been avoided with a fully automated airplane. But I can see how even more crashes could have happened with a fully automated airplane.

Anyway, I hope I' ll be long retired by the time we see these kind of planes.

And by the way, start a trial with freighters? These guys' life is not important enough? What if they crash into a crowded city? Think UPS in dubai, Asiana, or the afghan one. Imagine they were taking off from CDG, LHR or BRU?

[Flanker2]

And by the way, start a trial with freighters? These guys' life is not important enough? What if they crash into a crowded city? Think UPS in dubai, Asiana, or the afghan one. Imagine they were taking off from CDG, LHR or BRU?

In the UPS case, the pilots were incapacitated by the smoke. So a land-based pilot could have saved both the aircraft and the pilot by landing the aircraft.

The National B744 could not be saved, neither by the pilots or the ground-based pilot. But this system would have avoided one loss of life.

And technical malfunctions never happen of course, like loss of coms, or the AP unable to cope with hydraulic or electrical problems.

I can see how a lot of crashes could have been avoided with a fully automated airplane. But I can see how even more crashes could have happened with a fully automated airplane.

I think that the current UAS technology goes way beyond fully automated airplanes. Most UAV missions are controlled manually from take-off to touch-down, from half a world apart. Losing VHF comm is not an issue as you can still maintain Satcom, unless the frequencies are jammed on purpose. I also anticipate that VHF comms will be replaced and simplified by automated ADS-B based communication between the aircraft and ATC, under monitoring of the pilots. ADS-B will no longer require audio communications around the airport.-, as pilots can gain awareness of aircraft movements in and around the airport through the system.

I think that the biggest waste is during cruise. Ground-based pilots can manage several aircraft simultaneously during cruise. If something happens, they can activate automated checklists or have the back-up pilot do the checklist manually. In an emergency situation, the ground-based pilots can gather and share the workload in parallel work stations.

I'm not worried about the system itself, but I'm worried about the way of implementation.

[AirOpinion]

This will happen... Everything in aviation is moving to centralized operation. I think that the step from 2 to automated flight is a more logical step in that process

[flightlover]

Maybe it could be an extra back up for the human factor as there isn't any at the moment. It would also be logic in case of hijacking or other threats.
Planes are safe because of redundancy. If one thing fails, there is a back-up.

[earthman]

You might end up with pilots on the plane doing nothing and getting paid almost nothing, and only getting laid if they actually have to do something.

Then you'll get the same issues as with the soyuz auto-dock system which mysteriously malfunctions all the time, necessitating a manual docking (for which the cosmonauts receive extra pay).

[sean1982]

We cannot expect pilots to sit there flight after flight doing nothing and then hen stuff is going wrong to suddenly take over. Pilots need to keep their basic flying skills sharp. After some high profile crashes (colgan air, Air France A330) that were largely down to basic pilot skill error, the industry is realizing that we are allready to far down that road. Going even further would be very unwise.

[FlightMate]

When I was talking about the latest B744F crashes, I mainly pointed out that taking freighter flights as "test" flights is not less dangerous.
A crash could happen in populated areas.

And if they claim one-pilot planes to be as safe, why do they want to experiment on freighter aircraft beforehand?

As for loss of comm (satcom included), it happen more frequently than you think.

My other point was that: yes, most crashes are due to pilot errors. So without pilot, you remove that risk.
But even more crashes have been avoided thanks to pilots, or to a second pilot.

If the plane is conceived to do everything, from T/O to change of level in cruise to descent to weather avoidance to landing and taxi. Then sure it is possible.
Otherwise, putting everything in one pilot's hands is removing all the pilot monitoring side which is as equally important as the pilot flying skills.

Then there is the passenger view. Would they be confident in boarding a fully automated plane? OR one where the pilot is not on board, thus not risking his life with them?

And remember, you only need one crash and you can forget the (cost saving) idea.

[Comet]

I don't like the sound of aircraft being controlled remotely from the ground - that is a gift to terrorists who want nothing more than to destroy airliners and kill as many as possible.

[andorra-airport]

I don't like the sound of aircraft being controlled remotely from the ground - that is a gift to terrorists who want nothing more than to destroy airliners and kill as many as possible.

I am sure the pilot (or more on long-haul) can overrule.

This will happen... Everything in aviation is moving to centralized operation. I think that the step from 2 to automated flight is a more logical step in that process

So true, it will happen. A while ago I saw a bus in Rotterdam without a driver (ParkShuttle), now that was weird if you see that for the first time, but that is how future will be, I guess.

[FlightMate]

Then they really will have to design planes like this:

[Comet]

I don't like the sound of aircraft being controlled remotely from the ground - that is a gift to terrorists who want nothing more than to destroy airliners and kill as many as possible.

I am sure the pilot (or more on long-haul) can overrule.

One pilot could, but some reports I read stated they were considering having planes with no pilots on - that really would be asking for trouble.

[BrightCedars]

I'm not liking the idea. In IT as soon as something is a little important you need to make backups, have a backup copy at another distant site, have redundant systems, etc. And only a fraction of the time are we talking about breakdowns that would cause any direct loss of life.

I do think one day the plane will fly itself from A to B and it's probably not the most exciting time in history for pilots but redundancy onboard is tantamount. It's not a car that will stop on the side of the road or a ship that will stop sailing, it's a plane that will fall.

[fcw]

The older pilots amongst us started their carreer with 5 in the cockpit, this gradually reduced to 2.
Youngsters starting their carreer now will certainely end up alone in the cockpit and probably they will retire as office pilots.
Don't forget that the modern airplanes are already uncontrolable if all onboard computers fail.

[earthman]

This gives new meaning to the term 'armchair pilot'.