Single Pilot Airbus?

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,588
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
I can’t imagine the FAA approving this. EASA maybe, but the FAA?

Thoughts?

IMG_7806.jpeg
 
Today? No. In the not-too-distant future? Possibly/probably/maybe.

Doc Holliday said:
Been in the works for a while now, and Boeing has a similar plan.
Click to expand...
And neither Boeing nor Airbus would be developing it if there wasn't significant pull coming from their customers.

Nauga,
who used to feed the dog
 
Back when, I believe Boeing wanted to begin with long haul freighters. Single pilot, and a control center. After takeoff and the flight was underway, control would be handed off to the ground station and the pilot onboard would sleep or whatever, then take back over on the arrival/landing.

After this proved successful, begin the process of moving it into passenger type operations.
 
I thought part of this was eliminating the need for multiple pilots in the cockpit while in cruise, so that on long-haul flights you could reduce the total number of crew in rotation, but there would still be at least two pilots on board and in the cockpit during critical phases. Although at some point, we'll get beyond that.
 
Lindberg said:
I thought part of this was eliminating the need for multiple pilots in the cockpit while in cruise, so that on long-haul flights you could reduce the total number of crew in rotation, but there would still be at least two pilots on board and in the cockpit during critical phases. Although at some point, we'll get beyond that.
Click to expand...

Yep, staged development.
 
get rid of all flight attendants, make the beverage cart self-serve, scan your boarding pass at your seat to make sure you're in the right seat, one passenger gets selected at random to be the enforcer to resolve any inflight fights that may break out. that's how u save money and make for exciting flights every time.
 
But in actuality...

Single-pilot airliners are an engineer's dream...engineers love doing this just to show it can be done.

In practicality? What does this solve? Not much, really. And it injects new issues to solve. So in theory, one pilot would be on board and they would be assisted by a sort of super-dispatcher. OK, so you cut out the salary of a pilot, save a few coins. But in the meantime, you have to hire new people to properly maintain and manage the computer systems required to make this work. You probably still save some coins, but not as much as you'd think. And in return, you cut out redundancy, one of the most critical things we need to fly safely.

We have two or three hydraulic systems...two or three fuel pumps for each tank...two FMCs (in many airliners)...on and on. But we're going to have only one pilot? That works fine in good weather and when the work load is low, but introduce outside problems (weather, ATC issues, etc) plus mechanical problems, and now the airliner is being flown by a crippled crew.

I've had a lot of engineers point out that most crashes are caused by pilot error. That's true. I then ask them "how many mishaps have been prevented by pilots intervening to correct misbehaving automation?" As a professional pilot, I can say that happens fairly regularly. But we don't keep any statistics on that. If Airbus is successful, I have a feeling we may very well find out.

I say this as a safety professional (I ran aviation safety programs and was an accident investigator for the military for nearly two decades), not as a self-interested airline pilot...two pilots is cheap insurance. Better automation is very welcome....but two pilots should be the minimum in the interest of redundancy.
 
Cargo seems like a place something like this would land first.
 
TCABM said:
Cargo seems like a place something like this would land first.
Click to expand...
The penny pinchers who will trip over a dollar to pick up a penny? I've heard it before but I find it very unlikely they'll trade in their cheap, old wide bodies for a brand new jet to save the cost of a single pilot, even over a few decades I doubt it'd be beneficial at a cargo carrier.
 
AffordablePlanesWhen said:
The penny pinchers who will trip over a dollar to pick up a penny? I've heard it before but I find it very unlikely they'll trade in their cheap, old wide bodies for a brand new jet to save the cost of a single pilot, even over a few decades I doubt it'd be beneficial at a cargo carrier.
Click to expand...

You forget the regulatory aspect of it. Scheduled cargo is perceived as “less risk” to the public. At least one major has a dedicated cargo only subsidiary.
 
TCABM said:
You forget the regulatory aspect of it. Scheduled cargo is perceived as “less risk” to the public. At least one major has a dedicated cargo only subsidiary.
Click to expand...
Oh I know how the FAA/DOT/John-Q-Public feels about cargo 121 but I'm speaking only from the financial aspect. We have a fleet consisting of only 50% with GPS, even fewer with ACARS, and maybe 5 with CPDLC. The ones with GPS and CPDLC are generally not the ones crossing the Atlantic so we're flying below FL290 burning thousands of pounds of extra fuel and not taking advantage of tailwinds because they're too cheap to get GPS installed and/or CPDLC activated. You think they'll buy brand new airplanes for millions to save a few hundred thousand a year on a second pilot?
 
Lindberg said:
I thought part of this was eliminating the need for multiple pilots in the cockpit while in cruise,
Click to expand...
For the past 10 years or so they have been assessing two operational changes in commercial aviation: the “reduced crew” standard you mentioned and the “single pilot” standard. ICAO, NASA, and a few others have published a number of working papers, white papers, research papers, etc on both subjects.

The main push has come mainly from EU operators to the EASA who in turn has pushed on ICAO to look into the subject. Most papers against the change have come from pilot unions, etc. who list various reasons why it isn’t such a good idea. Makes for an interesting read when compare sides.

While I think the reduced crew standard will become a reality sooner than later simply because the existing equipment/aircraft can accommodate this change, single pilot ops are a long way away on the 121 side. So until you see an approved STC for single pilot ops at the transport level, or an approved new clean sheet transport aircraft designed for single/remote pilot ops, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

For context, Airbus has always been about developing new technologies for both airplanes and helicopters. The main reason is their parent company, EADS, is owned by several governments who play by different rules than most privately held companies like Boeing.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Back when, I believe Boeing wanted to begin with long haul freighters. Single pilot, and a control center. After takeoff and the flight was underway, control would be handed off to the ground station and the pilot onboard would sleep or whatever, then take back over on the arrival/landing.

After this proved successful, begin the process of moving it into passenger type operations.
Click to expand...
Can you log PIC while sleeping? Does it count for your max hours per week / day / whatever, or is it considered time off?

I think making it a "normal" operation to sleep during a flight is about as horrible an idea as I can come up with.
 
AffordablePlanesWhen said:
You think they'll buy brand new airplanes for millions to save a few hundred thousand a year on a second pilot?
Click to expand...
Using a rough hack of $150K for a pilot's yearly salary and $110M for a new A320, eliminating 100 left-seaters from the payroll would pay for itself in just over 7 years. You bet your ass they'd do it for that. Why do you think they're requesting the research from the major airframers and doing some of their own?

We used to joke that certain 121 carriers would trade their firstborn for a 1-count drag reduction to save pennies on a flight. It's a joke, of course, but there's some truth to it.

Nauga,
and his cattle car
 
NTSB Report: A77383-NS

Probable cause: Pilot's decision to read a magazine in the flight-deck toilet while the autopilot failed due to a system bug which swapped airspeed for AGL.
 
Salty said:
Can you log PIC while sleeping? Does it count for your max hours per week / day / whatever, or is it considered time off?

I think making it a "normal" operation to sleep during a flight is about as horrible an idea as I can come up with.
Click to expand...

Crews are doing it now (multi crew international). Of course there are two up front at any given time.
 
ALPA is fighting this tooth and nail, and it’s written into my airlines collective bargaining agreement that there must be two qualified pilots on the flight deck at all times. It’s going to take a lot of $$$ to get that changed.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Cuts the number of pilots in half that have to be paid and trained.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Any single-pilot scheme at the 121 level is going to require a much more robust dispatching element. Currently, dispatchers manage multiple flights. In order to provide the overwatch necessary, as well as remote redundant systems as a fail-safe, it will require an investment in more equipment and more personnel on the ground side. So yes, there will be a reduction in labor costs, but it's not going to be as simple as a 50% reduction in pilot training costs and salaries. And while those costs are substantial, they represent a fairly small sliver of the overall cost to operate an airline...even smaller when you factor in the increased costs in other areas in order to pull this off. So a modest reduction in expenses with a potential increase in risk factors related to only having one human on board.

Not saying it'll never happen, but it's going to be a ways off for US-based 121 operators.
 
Not particularly new news.

1732041151991.png
 
For non-cargo, I can't see the FAA allowing single pilot, due to the unfortunate suicide risk. I would therefore assume they would rather require zero pilots, than one.

Another option could be a single pilot, with a non-ATP pilot as second in command to ensure the pilot cant do something stupid, as well as to help with checklists. An ATP pilot + safety pilot with 500 hours is much cheaper than 2 ATP pilots, even if it's not half the cost
 
Last edited:
Chris Dickens said:
It's not that simple. Any single-pilot scheme at the 121 level is going to require a much more robust dispatching element. Currently, dispatchers manage multiple flights. In order to provide the overwatch necessary, as well as remote redundant systems as a fail-safe, it will require an investment in more equipment and more personnel on the ground side. So yes, there will be a reduction in labor costs, but it's not going to be as simple as a 50% reduction in pilot training costs and salaries. And while those costs are substantial, they represent a fairly small sliver of the overall cost to operate an airline...even smaller when you factor in the increased costs in other areas in order to pull this off. So a modest reduction in expenses with a potential increase in risk factors related to only having one human on board.

Not saying it'll never happen, but it's going to be a ways off for US-based 121 operators.
Click to expand...
Solves some problems and creates others, as they say.
 
Corin said:
For non-cargo, I can't see the FAA allowing single pilot, due to the unfortunate suicide risk. I would therefore assume they would rather require zero pilots, than one.

Another option could be a single pilot, with a non-ATP pilot as second in command to ensure the pilot decides to do something stupid, as well as to help with checklists. An ATP pilot + safety pilot with 500 hours is much cheaper than 2 ATP pilots.
Click to expand...
Or a single pilot and a dog.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Solves some problems and creates others, as they say.
Click to expand...

Yep, and one other problem I remember discussing is how do you develop experience? Right now, pilots build up to ATP minimums and then they usually sit as an FO for a while. You gotta have 1,000 hours of 121 experience to upgrade. How does that work with only one pilot in the cockpit? New hires would, by definition, be PIC immediately. It's not impossible, but that obviously sucks a lot of experience out of the cockpit instantly.
 
TCABM said:
Cargo seems like a place something like this would land first.
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm sure we'll see it in cargo ops, then charters, before it makes it to 121 (if ever).
 
Chris Dickens said:
Yep, and one other problem I remember discussing is how do you develop experience? Right now, pilots build up to ATP minimums and then they usually sit as an FO for a while. You gotta have 1,000 hours of 121 experience to upgrade. How does that work with only one pilot in the cockpit? New hires would, by definition, be PIC immediately. It's not impossible, but that obviously sucks a lot of experience out of the cockpit instantly.
Click to expand...
Imagine not every flight will be single pilot.

I suspect you’d see short haul becoming more so and long haul remaining fully crewed for the life time of most people here.

What you might also see is something weird like two pilots but one is helping out in the back to save on one attendant or make the first class and business passengers feel special having the captain come say hi etc.

Lots of ways to skin this cat and it doesn’t have to be savings mounting up to a new plane or equipment on day one. Just gets rolled out over time and the savings in labour is part of the calculus for airlines picking new fleets.
 
I had to laugh at this news article as I just finished my second redeye. Curious how they'll deal with the fatigue issue.
 
What fatigue issue? There’s no fatigue issue! How could fatigue possibly be an issue? That’s just the silly ravings of the uninformed!

(Feel free to write me in on the next election.)
 
Corin said:
Another option could be a single pilot, with a non-ATP pilot as second in command to ensure the pilot cant do something stupid, as well as to help with checklists. An ATP pilot + safety pilot with 500 hours is much cheaper than 2 ATP pilots, even if it's not half the cost
Click to expand...
Before the Colgan crash it was normal, especially in the Regionals, for the FO not to have an ATP. The pay for an airline pilot is based on seat and longevity not on the rating held.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top