ALPA's "Safety Starts with 2 (Pilots)" campaign. A sign of trouble ahead?

Posted by WorkingOnPPL@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 206 comments

If this particular topic has already been discussed here, I apologize. I stumbled across the following website created by ALPA: [https://safetystartswith2.com/](https://safetystartswith2.com/) and was wondering how concerned you are about this in regards to the future of 2-pilot flight decks? In some regards it is very easy to dismiss the feasibility of single-pilot decks, but on the other hand, if ALPA decided they needed to make a campaign/website about the topic, then on some level they must feel that this is a real threat? Or perhaps I am reading this wrong, and one of ALPAs functions is to put out fires that may not actually exist? I would be grateful to hear the perspective of professional pilots who have been around the industry for a while. Thank you.

Reply to Post

Reply

206 Comments

[-]

snoandsk88@reddit

Just to clarify, because there is often a lot of “the sky is falling” around this subject: For now, when Airlines like FedEx say they want to do research into single pilot operations, they do not mean that they want to fly heavies around the world with one person on board. What they want to look into, is taking their 4 person augmented crews and making them 3 person crews in which one person remains in the flight deck during cruise flight and the other two can be on rest. I know that’s a slippery slope, but whenever this subject comes up, pilots often jump into scenarios of landing in ORD single pilot, and that’s not what we are talking about (yet).

Reply

[-]

Joe_Littles@reddit

Even that would cost jobs. That’s the real issue.

Reply

[-]

sirduckbert@reddit

No it’s not. All progress in society has resulted in lost jobs. There are *lots* of reasons to not go single pilot in commercial aviation but lost jobs isn’t a good reason. You can’t get Joe Public (who already thinks you are an overpaid bus driver) on your side by saying you don’t want to lose your job - but explaining the nuance of safety and you maybe can get them to fight for you

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

Uhh saving jobs is ABSOLUTELY a good reason to fight this. Last year, AI started being able to generate intelligible images and videos. They've still got six fingers and three arms, but give it two more years and I'll bet animators and FX artists will be sweating. Basic non-investigative jurnalism is already outsourced to AI and you can code entire programs with Chat GPT. Israel is using AI to assist in picking targets in Gaza. A LOT of people will be losing jobs if we don't protect them NOW. And the end result isn't going to be a Star Trek Socialist utopia, it's going to be an Elysium-esque dystopia.

Reply

[-]

auburnstar12@reddit

Exactly, there either needs to be some SIGNIFICANT societal restructuring of a ... Historical french kind, or there need to be enough jobs. No jobs in our current society is going to make life even more hellish for a lot of people. Basically everyone homeless and scrounging around for food, killing squirrels in the park.

Reply

[-]

nineyourefine@reddit

> 3 person crews in which one person remains in the flight deck during cruise flight and the other two can be on rest. I know you're not the one promoting that, just sharing the info. That said... Fuck. That. There should never, ever be 1 person on the flight deck with the sole intention of operating the aircraft. I don't know why the airlines have such a hardon to get rid of a crew member (Okay, money, I do get it) that is directly responsible for the safety and security of the flight. How many times has the guy not said anything on a red eye, you look over and he/she fell asleep? What about levels of experience? You want 1 dude up there by himself that has little to no experience now in charge on his own? I mean hell, just the other day Southwest put out a statement on one of their flights coming dangerously close to hitting the water on a go-around because the FO inadvertently pushed the yoke forward instead of back, and the Captain had to take over to save it.

Reply

[-]

snoandsk88@reddit

I agree, but as a counter argument: after FedEx overflew Memphis, the FAA was considering allowing one pilot to be asleep in the flight deck, the thought was agreeing on one pilot being asleep was better than both pilots trying not to sleep and then both falling asleep. Obviously we kind of went the other direction with 117 rest rules and Fatigue programs, you just shouldn’t be at work if you can’t stay awake… but as you said, on a red eye, it does happen. I usually just brief people “hey man if you’re struggling just let me know you need me to take the aircraft and the comms for a bit, and I’m happy to.”

Reply

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

This is kind of nuts to me. In Canada we have Controlled Rest on the Flight Deck. And it's wonderful. I flew night cargo for a few years and it didn't matter how much sleep I got during the day it was hard to fight my circadian rhythm and I would quite often be tired. I'd (legally) close my eyes for 15-45 minutes and I was good to go.

Reply

[-]

randomroute350@reddit

Yep good ol USA. Down here it’s called “studying the circuit breaker panel”

Reply

[-]

SamSamTheDingDongMan@reddit

Airline industry: “Swiss Cheese model, all for safety!” Also Airline Industry: “What if we remove all but like 2 pieces of cheese to save $$$?”

Reply

[-]

CanoeingBeatsWork@reddit

You can be sure there have been and are many money people who are expending great efforts to construct and push the business cases for eliminating any cost. That's how they make their livings. Employees, like flight crew, are expensive. These same money people rarely suffer severely for the harms their "cost reduction" measures cause.

Reply

[-]

auburnstar12@reddit

There's a whole alley in America that is so polluted with chemical dumping that it rather worryingly called "Cancer Alley". There have been hundreds of deaths in the area, and birth defects, but because it is (mostly) poor Black people dying, they get away with it. It's a literal getting away with mass murder.

Reply

[-]

AlpacaCavalry@reddit

Suits: All I heard is cheese and now I am hungry.

Reply

[-]

dickheadfartface@reddit

“All I heard is cheese and now I am hungry. Lmao. Anyway, we’re laying you off.”

Reply

[-]

auburnstar12@reddit

Maybe me being cynical but I'm 99% sure they dgaf because they fly private and so aren't affected by what the plebs do

Reply

[-]

livebeta@reddit

Fuckin rats

Reply

[-]

lavionverte@reddit

To those who say people won't buy tickets on single pilot aircraft, look at the charter segment of this industry. Just think about it, people that can afford to spend hundreds thousand dollars every year on private jet travel still opt to fly with a shitty 134.5 Florida outfits instead of reputable companies even though their abysmal safety records isn't exactly a secret. Do you really think average Joe Schmoe looking for a basic economy fares on cheapticketzdealz.co won't go for one that costs $5.99 less because it's a single pilot flight?

Reply

[-]

TaskForceCausality@reddit

This Sure, people *say* they won’t pay for single pilot flights. They also say they’d pay for extra legroom , and customers back that belief by googling “cheapest flights from X to Y”….and happily enduring a crappy itinerary on a cramped economy class seat to save $2.00. Even if an airline has a demonstrably bad relative safety record people won’t give a shit if the tickets cheap enough. Back when Allegiants MD-80s were peppering headlines with failures and incidents, a friend of mine STILL booked tickets with them knowing full well they had issues. Sure, his Allegiant trip ended with a bus ride and an engine failure on the ramp- but he saved $100!

Reply

[-]

randomroute350@reddit

Having flown for a fractional with a single pilot certified jet, I can tell you 9/10 clients wanted and paid for two pilots up front.

Reply

[-]

NuttPunch@reddit

Look at the third world. People pile into trains in India without a care. They float on leaking ships from Africa to Europe. These people will pile into an autonomous plane if the price is something they can afford and it lands in a first world country that won't deport them.

Reply

[-]

phusto@reddit

Seriously question wouldn’t this make pretty much every Euro pilot that supports this development a scab? I know EB-2s seem to becoming more popular and if EASAs approved this wouldn’t a lot try to come stateside?

Reply

[-]

WorkingOnPPL@reddit (OP)

Off-topic but I read somewhere that the decision to give the "Airbus" name was partly to diminish the prestige of the piloting profession, in other words, keep pilot salaries in check.

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

The term "Airbus" existed long before the European aerospace company.

Reply

[-]

phusto@reddit

Gross

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

From what I understand, it sounds like there’s some sort of push to certify the A350 for single pilot ops of some sort. I don’t see the FAA getting on board with it for a while, but it is a threat. The day airliners go single pilot is the day I stop flying. A second pilot is critical to threat and error management, we catch each other’s mistakes all the time. Ridiculous that it’s even a conversation. For once though I’m glad the FAA drags their feet.

Reply

[-]

TowMater66@reddit

One simply needs to look at the relative accident rates in single-piloted commercial rotorcraft to have a good idea how this will go. Decision making is the most error prone and having a second brain there is soooooo beneficial. I had a shower thought though, about a “remote copilot” who could monitor, dip in and out, help out with malfunctions, comms, nav, etc, from a central location…. Like if you have a problem all the sudden you have another crew or two beside you digitally…. It would take serious development and standardization, no doubt, but it would be an interesting version of the future.

Reply

[-]

jefe_toro@reddit

Expect how are they going to help you remotely if you have a communications problem?

Reply

[-]

Butchishere@reddit

Boeing/NASA have been working on their "harbor pilot" and "super dispatcher" concepts for years. I think there are and will be for a while some pretty big questions around data security and the risks that malicious hackers can pose when you have an airliner filled with people that can be controlled remotely though.

Reply

[-]

Dave_A480@reddit

Well, we do it with an aircraft loaded down with lethal munitions as it is (MQ9 and friends).... Don't know if anyone ever hacked one, then again the AF wouldn't make that public if it had happened, unless something got bombed that really wasn't supposed to....

Reply

[-]

TowMater66@reddit

Thanks for the info. Led me to some interesting reading. All conceptual at this point. I feel like industry and govt are going to do the Spider-Man point at each other regarding which party should invest in technical refinement and conop development. The public will probably favor “neither”. Personally, I’d rather see industry invest in the training pipeline in a meaningful way to lower cost of entry to airline employment. Cheers

Reply

[-]

NuttPunch@reddit

Yes and that "remote copilot" will ultimately get outsourced to the Phillipines or India because it's the cheapest. Or they'll be paid so low it will be high turnover so you'll basically have a new guy every time. These companies are scummy, we all know that's what a remote copilot would be. A fucking call center.

Reply

[-]

livebeta@reddit

Unintelligible accent: hello I am your remote pilot what task do you want me to assist with? Pilot: (gives verbal instructions in panpan) Agent-pilot: just a moment while I run that past my manager ... Five minutes later... Agent-pilot: I'm sorry due to the limitations of our service plan we're not able to execute these instructions. Would your management be keen on upgrading to premium plus, where we can escalate this to a higher level agent-pilot? (Source: grew up in southeast Asia and lots of call centers have unintelligible accents due to common timezones)

Reply

[-]

NuttPunch@reddit

Hello yes sar!! SAR!! I accidentally filed your flight plan under the wrong seniority number and you should see your pay at $1,000hr! Please Sar! This is my most humble mistake. Please help me keep my job, please go acquire 10 $100 Amazon gift cards and transfer them to me!

Reply

[-]

livebeta@reddit

> a “remote copilot” who could monitor, dip in and out, help out with malfunctions, comms, nav, etc, from a central location…. Susceptible to remote intrusion, sensor fault and bad software ( MCAS x Max8 anyone)

Reply

[-]

Veritech-1@reddit

Oh cool, the airplane that has a fault mode of "I don't know if we're on the ground or in the air anymore, so you have control" is going to be fully automated... What could go wrong.

Reply

[-]

livebeta@reddit

I'm a software engineer and don't trust software systems to autonomously pilot a plane. A car is bad enough you could at least stop in 2D space but plummeting in 3D space isn't fun

Reply

[-]

OracleofFl@reddit

I totally agree. It is one thing when everything works smoothly but imagine a major fire or emergency at JFK or ORD and ATC in low ceiling snow and high wind conditions is scrambling redirecting 50 transport aircraft plus 20 other non-transport category are you going to tell me one pilot can handle the cancelled approach, revector and minimum spacing landing at an alternate? One crash with fatalities that could have been avoided with two pilots and that dream will die and it won't take long for that to happen. Single pilot on a repositioning flight with no PX of 100 miles? Sure, knock yourself out. That is probably part 91 anyway.

Reply

[-]

fly-guy@reddit

While not defending the idea, Airbus is not proposing to fly the plane with 1 pilot all the way, but when there are 3 required, to ditch one. So two during takeoff and landing and one during cruise, while the other rests. I still think it is a bad idea, but it is different than the scenario you described.

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

The problem is all it takes is for people to say “well this works like this, why not 1 pilot all the time” or some such. Death by 1000 cuts. The conversation oughta just be over now.

Reply

[-]

brainrotleftist@reddit

And what if that pilot suffers a stroke or another medical emergency during the flight? Then who will fly the plane? It’s simply unsafe I can’t see that passing ever.

Reply

[-]

livebeta@reddit

> Then who will fly the plane? You'll have to fall back on that one guy who used to fly single engine fighters But It's a different kind of flying, altogether

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

This has happened very recently. Envoy CA keeled over on takeoff, right?

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

EXACTLY. It better never pass.

Reply

[-]

fly-guy@reddit

While I do agree with you, this isn't the first time we have this discussion. When flight engineers were still common, the exact argument was raised when they left and 3 became 2. I think we, as an pilot group, need better arguments than the slippery slope/1000 cuts one. We can't convince the airplane makers and airlines, they only see money(savings). We can, hopefully, convince the customers, the public. But not with these arguments.

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

True, but there is a HUGE difference going from 3 to 2 vs 2 to just 1 as far as I’m concerned.

Reply

[-]

fly-guy@reddit

I agree with you, but the question is how to stop it? If we all quit, they will find others, there are always others who want to do it. Convincing the pricks is, as far as I see, the only way (don't have that much trust in regulatory bodies and/or governments). My (European) union had started a campaign with flyers and websites as a first step, hopefully it works.

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

I imagine if the general public is against it enough then that’s probably the most powerful way to convince those making decisions. If people are not willing to travel because of this then the answer should be obvious to those that make the call.

Reply

[-]

kiwi_love777@reddit

Give an inch- and they’ll take a mile…

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

This exactly

Reply

[-]

kiwi_love777@reddit

Yup

Reply

[-]

OracleofFl@reddit

Flying pilot falls asleep, suicidal or is drugged and there is only one person in the cockpit. How does the door get opened? Didn't we have this problem in Germany years ago? How about one pilot with a jump seater on acid trying to hit the fire bottles on the engines? Didn't that happen a few months ago?

Reply

[-]

Inpayne@reddit

I’d almost certainly fall asleep. Sometimes on late night flights the only thing that keeps us awake is each other.

Reply

[-]

fly-guy@reddit

If this ever goes live and I haven't quit yet, you can be sure my ipad has some downloaded movies on it, or my entire music collection paired to a BT speaker.

Reply

[-]

Tomcat848484@reddit

No no no. You can’t use personal electronic devices, because that will be too distracting.

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

This too! That was me and the other guy this morning, flying a repo back from out of the country at 1a.

Reply

[-]

Inpayne@reddit

Yeah I got reassigned the other night. Was supposed to be in bed by 11pm. Pretty easy day. Ended up on the other side of the country at 4am in my time zone…. Coulda fatigued I guess. But there was no way I would have done that flight alone.

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

Same here. We were down in Cuba bringing a broken plane back stateside. Those flights never go off without a hitch so naturally it was late when we pulled in. Would not have wanted to be by myself.

Reply

[-]

McDrummerSLR@reddit

Yea I can’t even believe it’s being discussed. Absolutely disgusted. Shit can get busy and go sideways so fast it’s not even funny.

Reply

[-]

brittleGriddle@reddit

A pilot just died in the ME on a trip from HCAI to TIF). The co-pilot diverted to JED). No one hurt. Not sure how would have that gone without two pilots.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Project dragonfly on the A350 can Identify the nearest suitable landing spot and can shoot any non standard approach or an airport without a published approach using a suite of vision sensors and identifiable landmarks. That used with ground monitoring. No pilots needed.

Reply

[-]

flightist@reddit

And radar’s better than my eyes at seeing weather but I’ve never once had my vision go blank, get replaced by EYE FAIL and then had to go search for a CB to reset.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

ONE pilot, onboard systems and a ground monitoring crew is triple redundancy.

Reply

[-]

Rev-777@reddit

How is all of that cheaper than properly trained and rested pilots? This is a rhetorical question.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

It might not be cheaper but on time performance will be much better. Routes on demand might be a thing too. I can see VTOL's becoming increasingly popular and serving the routes that regional airlines take care of. Airlines will have to get better at efficiency and the only way to do that is to take humans out of the equation.

Reply

[-]

Rev-777@reddit

How could OTP possibly be a factor with the number of pilots on board? We're late more than 50% of the time and I can tell you the pilots are precisely zero of that. Put another way, we're never late because of those up front. I think you're arguing a topic for which your knowledge is very limited.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Imagine the possibility of repositioning with no pilots on board too.

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

"Imagine us not having jobs"

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

There are tons of jobs. Might not be flying a plane but there will always be jobs. ALPA can work with this to ensure there is a place for pilots. Maybe it's ensuring that pilots get opportunities first. They can start negotiating for these kinds of changes so that when it happens there are guarantees. Instead they want to spend money fighting against it. The technology is coming. It might be 10, 20 or 30 years but it's coming. The question is why it's a fight worth fighting.

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

There is no societal benefit to single pilot airliners, only increased margins for shareholders. Hard pass.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Increased safety

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

Sure, add more iterations of safety features, with two crewmembers at the controls at all times. There is no "increased safety" by reducing the number of active crewmembers, this is basic aviation safety theory here. My recommendation is that you listen to actual aviation professionals and not aircraft manufacturers and airline executives.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Human factors is one of the leading causes of airline accidents and it accounts for 70-80 percent in GA. Pilots aren’t part of the problem?

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

Oh they're absolutely part of the problem. Wanna know what the solution to that problem is? The second pilot. One of the largest human factors accident causes is AUTOMATION MISMANAGEMENT. AT/AP acting up, pilot enters what he thinks he heard ATC say but it was wrong. "Oh shit, what's it doing?" is corrected by a second set of eyes to say "Ah you programmed that wrong" or "Hey I think you missed closing the Crossfeed Valve". Again, you're out of your depth here.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Why am I out of my depth?

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

Arguing that most accidents are human error and using that to support the argument of single pilot ops? Really? It's clear you've never worked in a crewed environment. At least not an effective crewed environment. And you've clearly never truly studied human factors or actually applied it in practice. And that's okay. But that means you should not be arguing for or against single pilot ops. Use this thread to listen to actual professionals.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Arguing human factors is not a part of the equation is scary. Human factors is a huge deal in aviation. Just because you work in a 2 crew environment does not mean you're immune to mistakes. Look at the Asiana crash in SFO. Crewed environment with 3 people in the cockpit and not one of them saw a problem with the approach speed. Southwest flight that almost took out the tower at LGA. Two people in the cockpit and neither realized the approach was unstable? On January 13, 2023, about 2044 local time, American Airlines (AAL) flight 106, a Boeing 777-223, N754AN, crossed runway 4L on taxiway J without air traffic control (ATC) clearance at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Queens, New York, causing Delta Air Lines (DAL) flight 1943, a Boeing 737-900ER, N914DU, to abort its takeoff roll on runway 4L 2023-01-23 Daniel K. Inouye International Airport, Hawaii A United Airlines aircraft crossed a runway into the path of a Kamaka Air small cargo plane. 46 incidents of near misses happened in 2023 involving commercial airliners. I will give you that some if not the majority could be ATC. But as noted above some were completely pilot error and human factors related. Please tell me again how this is a non issue?

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

Ya might wanna read some of those accident reports. And then talk to a professional about what happened within each accident report. You're very much not making the argument you think you are.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

I did read them. They are human factors related.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Wait, pilots never time out? Flights aren't cancelled because of crew scheduling? Come on now......

Reply

[-]

Rev-777@reddit

How is single pilot in cruise going to change FT/DT regs?

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

i never said it would change the regs?

Reply

[-]

flightist@reddit

They’ll 100% be more restrictive, but imagining for a moment they aren’t, do you want to explain how you envision single pilot ops makes such a difference to pilots timing out that OTP will be ‘much better’? Spell it out for us.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

More available time for crew rest and more pilot availability. VTOLs can reduce routes. Pilotless planes without passengers can free up more single pilots to fly passengers. Honestly it's endless as far as what the future holds for how airlines can structure.

Reply

[-]

Rev-777@reddit

Ferry flights are <1% of all operated flights at an airline. A rounding error on a balance sheet. If you had any idea how the industry worked you’d know this, so again, your knowledge on the matter is limited. My last response to you.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

So I have to be a professional to understand what technology is currently being demoed? So what if cost is only 10 percent of the argument? Doesn't mean it's not important. This is a moment where aviation might change significantly. Does it mean that shift should be shut down because pilots are scared about what happens to them? That's the bigger problem. ALPA is trying to stop innovation because this technology hurts them and the union.

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

What’s funny is it would probably make them even more restrictive.

Reply

[-]

flightist@reddit

I knew VTOLs would come up too.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

There is a reason United is invested in Archer aviation.

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

You think a VTOL that’s targeting 30-50 mile range, is going to replace the regional airline industry? How many regional airline routes in the United States are under 50 miles? I can think of maybe one.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Who said it's limited to 30-50 mile range?

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

The front page of their freaking website….

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

From Odys Aviation working on hybrid VTOLs "Our VTOL aircraft is more than an air taxi. While we can handle short-hops that connect airports with city centers, our aircraft flies up to 750 miles covering more than half of the busiest domestic routes in the US."

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

lol that’s a lot of talk for a company with no working prototype that can meet any of that BS. Typical tech start up. Make up a bunch of pie in the sky BS, get people to invest, then never produce a product that meets any of the hype. Come back when they have a real aircraft that can meet those stats. Until then it’s just a bunch of Tech bro hot air.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Until it isnt. VTOLs aren't some sci-fi crazy idea that's impossible. It's completely possible with working VTOL prototypes today.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Of who's? There are 5-6 different companies working on VTOLs?

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

Archer, the company you just said United is interested in.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

That's just one company working on this. There are so many working towards different kinds of VTOLs.

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

Yep that’s another one of their buzzwords. Cause a VTOL is gonna take 76 people from OKC to DFW…..lol Let me guess, it will be battery powered, zero carbon footprint, and autonomous. Any other buzzwords I forgot to add?

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

I think you forgot triggered....

Reply

[-]

flightist@reddit

>on time performance will be much better Yes, massively complex and critical electronics are well known in the industry for their positive effects on dispatch reliability.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Just like EFB's are more reliable than printed out weather forecasts that cant be updated during flight? Things change and evolve. Doesn't mean that the technology from today will be the same in 10 years.

Reply

[-]

flightist@reddit

Oh in 10 years I’ll absolutely be using the 30+ year old tech installed in the aircraft I fly, except it will be 40+ years old by then.

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

Maybe in 10 years the FAA will finally let me throw out my paper QRH….one can dream

Reply

[-]

FriendlyDespot@reddit

> Vision sensors are a better tool than human eyes. They can see and avoid at a better rate than a human can. They can predict in ways that a human could never do. Can they pull their own fuses if they start messing up?

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Can a flight attendant pull a fuse? I think the passenger in 3B could if you gave him good directions.

Reply

[-]

spency_c@reddit

Not to mention the psyche of a single pilot flying 350 people!!!!

Reply

[-]

cptnpiccard@reddit

It's ludicrous to even imagine a scenario where all the equipment in the aircraft, and all the procedures around flying it, are double- or even triple-redundant, and then the final step on the chain is a single point of failure, who's a skipped heart beat away from unraveling the whole system.

Reply

[-]

philbert247@reddit

I couldn’t agree more, there is no way to accurately calculate the number of mishaps prevented by simply adding a second pilot and teaching both effective CRM. We should be appalled that any regulatory body would want to remove these safeguards.

Reply

[-]

TheKimulator@reddit

They’ll hound you over mental health, but want single pilot ops? The issue with Germanwings was mental health AND a mentally ill person being given sole access to the cockpit.

Reply

[-]

e_pilot@reddit

yep there’s no such thing as the perfect flight, all sorts of innocuous mistakes happen in the cockpit, two pilots help keep those small mistakes from spiraling into something bad if the FAA were not to inevitably approve this it would mean their admission that we aren’t perfect robots, and just look at their stance on mental health if you’re wondering how that is going to go

Reply

[-]

BrtFrkwr@reddit

They have to to counter the well-financed and continuous campaign by airlines and makers of automation systems (if you don't believe they're infallible, just ask 'em) to do away with as many jobs as possible.

Reply

[-]

BigBadPanda@reddit

Are any airlines actually pursuing/financing single pilot technology?

Reply

[-]

mduell@reddit

[Cathay](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-cathay-working-with-airbus-single-pilot-system-long-haul-2021-06-16/) has been the most public proponent so far.

Reply

[-]

FlyingShadow1@reddit

To be expected from the Chinese government. Their whole philosophy is undercut the market hard so that nobody else can compete with you.

Reply

[-]

aviation992@reddit

Pretty sure Cathay has been conducting a 'study' with Airbus

Reply

[-]

BrtFrkwr@reddit

Not that I know of. Existing airplanes are certificated for two crew. There would have to be new airplanes designed for one crew, but from the constant drumbeat I suspect they're asking the manufacturers about it. I'm sure engineers, having infinite confidence in their infallibility, are assuring everyone it will be as safe as driverless cars.

Reply

[-]

syfari@reddit

That’s not exactly a gold standard lmao

Reply

[-]

BrtFrkwr@reddit

They have their true believers.

Reply

[-]

ponyrider666@reddit

I was flying with a border patrol guy last week. He had some eye opening info about all of the flyaways and crashes that their multimillion dollar drones experience all over the USA.

Reply

[-]

NuttPunch@reddit

Talk to industry people who develop those drones for the government. They can make them better, but there isn't really much incentive because it will increase the price substantially. The government doesn't care if they flyaway or crash as they are "cheap" enough to replace.

Reply

[-]

blueorangan@reddit

Doesn’t it ultimately depend on the FAAs opinion, not public opinion?

Reply

[-]

BrtFrkwr@reddit

The FAA has a history of doing what it's told.

Reply

[-]

tdscanuck@reddit

Airbus and EASA are actively promoting it *in cruise* (reduced augmentation). Nobody is seriously pitching Part 121 full single pilot…yet. ALPA is just getting out in front of it, as they should given what their members pay them for.

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

God I'd hate to be the poor FO left alone fresh off OE while the CA is asleep in the bunk, dodging thunderstorms over the Pacific (I don't know how Oceanic stuff works don't skewer me).

Reply

[-]

sirpsychosexy8@reddit

I doubt it would be allowed during OE. But your point is not missed

Reply

[-]

MovieEuphoric8857@reddit

How much do pilots pay toward the Union?

Reply

[-]

GooseMcGooseFace@reddit

1% of our income depending on the airline.

Reply

[-]

Prestigious-Elk-9061@reddit

So how in the hell is this even on the table when DOT (Federal Railroad Administration) JUST passed a law in April 2024 requiring two operators on all freight trains?? Looks like it was the exact same fear of progression toward cost cutting in labor to save money that led the FRA to suggest a law in 2022. I’m glad ALPA is speaking up and bringing attention to this. FAA needs to get it together and suggest a law requiring a 2 operator minimum. All of this cost cutting BS needs to stay far, far, away from passenger and cargo transportation. Some of these companies are willing to spend blood to pinch pennies and we need stop it now. [U.S. Finalizes Rule Requiring Two-Person Crews on Freight Trains](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/us/politics/freight-train-crew-rule.html)

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

They need this campaign because a lot of the arguments against what's happening are based out of fear mongering. SO what induces fear more than having pilots say how dangerous it is. This is all they have left.

Reply

[-]

No_Airport_5355@reddit

You’re fighting a good fight but this crowd will obviously not have it. Most of them have been ignoring technological advancement, saying this type of aircraft couldn’t possibly have been certified in our lifetimes and yet here we are. Telling pilots to stop flying is like telling drug dealers to stop selling drugs. I’m sure most pilots would rather see the entire industry on fire before accepting reduced crew requirements. However the overall decision likely won’t be made by pilots

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Trust me, I know. I took my first flying lesson when I was 12. I knew from the very start that I wanted to be a pilot. I don't want to stop flying planes. It's very important in my life. But I see changes in aviation as overall good. Aviation the way it is can't sustain itself. It is growing at a rate that if we don't change things then a breakdown is inevitable. The aviation I knew 20 years ago when I started until now is much different.

Reply

[-]

rhapsodydude@reddit

I design those things (part 25 airplanes) for a living. No, you don’t have to worry about it for the time being. The technology is simply not there to enable single pilot 121/135 using part 25 airplanes. Even with new technologies, certification will take forever. Nobody in the industry will be crazy enough to propose full SPO short of major technological breakthroughs. These tech will be gradually introduced over the future and if they’re successful, you’ll see the writing on the wall.

Reply

[-]

flyingron@reddit

I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.

Reply

[-]

WorkingOnPPL@reddit (OP)

Not sure if I agree completely with this. If I were given the option of paying $110 to fly with a single-pilot, or $120 to fly with 2 pilots, I'm taking the 2 pilot option every time. A bottle of water at O'Hare costs $6 for goodness sake.

Reply

[-]

Shinsf@reddit

You will never be given an option airlines want you to have as little info as possible.

Reply

[-]

IGoUnseen@reddit

If there's a significant market desire for 2 pilot ops, airlines will advertise it. I know personally I won't want to fly on a plane with only 1 pilot and I know I'm not alone. Airlines will want to state their policy to win my business.

Reply

[-]

Shinsf@reddit

The only reason they will tell you there are two pilots is when their aircraft aren't retrofitted or approved for single pilot then they will say "Here at Delta we employ two of the world's finest pilots to fly your aircraft because safety matters" Until they get approval. Then they will say labor is too much. This has to be fought on an executive level and never brought to market.

Reply

[-]

IGoUnseen@reddit

I'm not talking from a legal or regulation standpoint, I'm talking from purely a marketing and economics standpoint. If enough people care, it will be public knowledge. Flying is a replaceable good, so if people don't feel safe on single pilot planes (I wouldn't) they'll take the train or drive instead. Once that happens, an airline will do the market research and realize if all the other airlines have switched to single pilot, they can win market share by being the only airline selling to people who will only fly dual pilot. Their tickets will be more expensive, but they will make money by doing that.

Reply

[-]

KITTYONFYRE@reddit

99% of the flying public won't see that option, they'd just see "oh yay frontier is $9 cheaper let's go with them :)" on their flight aggregator site

Reply

[-]

randylush@reddit

Even worse, when you fly for business travel, your company won't pay the extra $ for the other pilot

Reply

[-]

NuttPunch@reddit

Half the time you are paying for a ticket only to fly on a contracted regional. That really isn't any different from single pilot ops. They'll just spool up sub 76 seat RJ that is single pilot and stuff some new guy in there who wants PIC time because GOTTA GET HOURS. You'll buy a ticket and won't even know until you read the fine print or show up to the gate that it's a regional and single pilot. Single pilot shouldn't happen and you better hope the regional model gets buried if you really want to prevent that from happening.

Reply

[-]

blueorangan@reddit

Your opinion doesn’t really matter because you’re a pilot. The average person has no idea what goes on, and will just see a cheaper ticket price and think cool I’ll pick that one.

Reply

[-]

vanillanuttapped@reddit

You say that but the traveling public has proven time and time again they will put up with all sorts of bullshit in order to save a dollar.

Reply

[-]

grumpycfi@reddit

You're here on this subreddit so therefore have already filtered yourself out from the general flying public.

Reply

[-]

Shinsf@reddit

You will never be given an option airlines want you to have as little info as possible.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Source-438@reddit

I mean surveys of customers regarding single pilot commercial ops have pretty consistently returned negative results

Reply

[-]

NuttPunch@reddit

Maybe in the West. Look at videos in Asia where people pile into public transit. They throw pennies into jet engines for good luck. Look at India where they cram into derelict trains from decades past. Crammed in standing for hours or days... sometimes sitting on roofs. They'll pile into single pilot or even autonomous planes without a care. Especially if that plane is going to fly them to a wealthier country they can exploit for immigration. Downvote away!

Reply

[-]

flyingron@reddit

But surveys don't mean much. I presume if you surveyed passengers about being able to get seat selection, free checked bags, refundable tickets, etc.... they'd be all for those things but they'll still buy the SuperEconomy fare that offers none of this.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Source-438@reddit

I mean that's fair, but I think a lot of the general public is skittish around aviation to begin with lots of people have a fear of flying. 9/11 and COVID were pretty good examples of how fickle people are about flying I think ALPA will have a fairly easy job scaring the public about the potential safety risks of a computer rather than a person in the cockpit. Look at the whole "if it's Boeing I'm not going" shit right now It'll take years of successful ops on the cargo side before passengers are satisfied. IMHO

Reply

[-]

NuttPunch@reddit

The general public is stupid and ignorant with not much money to spare. They don't research their purchases and they will buy the cheapest thing every time even if it cost more in the long run. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public, especially Americans.

Reply

[-]

flyingron@reddit

People say it but they aren't doing it.

Reply

[-]

BigMoneyDan@reddit

The thing is that what people claim to feel / state when asked often doesn’t hold up when push comes to shove. The public have negative, often strong, opinions on Boeing and the MAX, yet travel numbers are only going up.

Reply

[-]

BurnCycle82@reddit

Except ALPA, along with the individual pilot groups, wouldn't allow it. The airline will lose all the money it's trying to save and more when nobody will operate said single-pilot aircraft.

Reply

[-]

flyingron@reddit

Of course, that's what you're seeing here. That's the whole point of this campaign is to thwart it.

Reply

[-]

Emdub81@reddit

This is such an oddball thing to think about: depending on what number you use, somewhere between 70% and 85% of all innocents are pilot error. Yet, we trust the pilots, in redundancy, more than we would ever trust computers. I include myself in that. I want 2 pilots. That said, future generations, probably not too distance, will look back on us like we're freakin' crazy in that assessment, I believe.

Reply

[-]

Urrolnis@reddit

Has an airline's flight ops team ever talked about single pilot ops? Somebody with actual operation expertise. Suits will do what suits do, but anybody who's at least jumpseated on the flight deck knows this isn't going to go well. Runway change? Guess I'm setting the parking brake for ten minutes. Pilots wearing catheters? Can't leave it unattended for a bio break. Pilots having to hold a dead man's switch of some sort if they fall asleep or direct attention elsewhere it harasses them until they grab it again?

Reply

[-]

asorr91@reddit

Let’s ditch pilots and compromise safety of millions of passengers but keep paying our CEO’s 30+ million a year 😂😂

Reply

[-]

flybot66@reddit

After the moneyed class whittle the cockpit down to one pilot, the next logical step is no pilots. Right? After all pilots cause 80% of accidents. This is just greed.

Reply

[-]

moderngamer327@reddit

The only way that we will get single pilot 121 is if the planes become automated enough that they are basically certified to fly themselves even in emergency situations

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Like Garmin Autonomí?

Reply

[-]

moderngamer327@reddit

Im not familiar with the system so I couldn’t say

Reply

[-]

branda22@reddit

Freight trains still operate with 2 crew. Good luck getting single pilot ops in our lifetime.

Reply

[-]

mduell@reddit

> if ALPA decided they needed to make a campaign/website about the topic, then on some level they must feel that this is a real threat? The recent protests on capitol hill, that website, etc are in respose to the [progress Airbus and EASA are making](https://aerocrewnews.com/aviation-news/aviator-bulletins/europes-largest-pilot-union-raises-alarm-single-pilot-cruise-operations-are-coming/) that ALPA (and ECA etc) don't want to see replicated in the US.

Reply

[-]

High_Flyin89@reddit

There’s a reason single engine airliners don’t exist. There’s a reason we don’t have one gen on board, or one hydraulic system, or have both engines feed from the same fuel tank. Risk mitigation is all about have redundancy built into the system. 2 pilots are part of that redundancy.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

A pilot, and onboard system and a ground monitoring crew is triple redundancy.

Reply

[-]

CreakingDoor@reddit

We already have triple redundancy. We have PF, PM and onboard systems. Please explain to me how having a person monitoring from the ground is somehow better redundancy than having a person monitoring from three feet away, with the ability to prompt, direct and ultimately intervene as required.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

Why does it need to be better? Why can't it be just as good. Does it have to be better in order for it to make sense.

Reply

[-]

CreakingDoor@reddit

It isn’t just as good. Ground based monitoring has no ability to intervene unless you want a system by which the guy in the actual aircraft can be locked out from outside the aeroplane.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

What? I don't understand what you're talking about here. A ground crew can work with one pilot in the cockpit. They work as a team. Why would they lock someone out.

Reply

[-]

CreakingDoor@reddit

Ok. Old mate of flying the approach. They misjudge the landing and slam it in. It bounces. A baulked landing needs to be flown. PF is startled and freezes up. Who is now flying the plane? Because PM isn’t there to help any more. What happens today is that PM, at least on an Airbus, would press the priority button and fly the plane. I see every captain do this drill every time I go in the sim. Every time. Further, what happens if the pilot’s side stick has a fault, requiring the other pilot to fly? What if they have a heart attack during the take off roll or slump onto the stick short final? What if they’re going to land it on the nose wheel? This is when PM pushes the priority button and takes over. But PM isn’t there and you’re telling me it’s just as good to have someone on the ground - not in the aeroplane - have that power. Or not have that power at all? This isn’t even what EASA/Airbus are talking about, but are you seriously telling me - as a CPL-IR holder - that you’d be ok with having no pilot monitoring?

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

The answer to your last question. My role as a pilot will shift and I'm ok with that. I'm not going to be outsourced. There will still be a need for my knowledge. What is EASA and Airbus talking about? What if the side stick wouldn't work. Why wouldn't there be a redundant one. Just because the pilot is leaving the cockpit doesn't mean redundancy is. Silly argument. If one pilot is still in the cockpit why couldn't they still take over? Well what if that one person dies of a heart attack on approach past minimums. Cockpit detection which Airbus has explained could immediately shift to onboard systems and initiate a go around. I have a question for you. What if today with a two person crew. A pilot dies of a heart attack on short final and pushes the side stick forward?

Reply

[-]

Shinsf@reddit

Airlines would have 0 pilots if they could get away with it. We haven't had an airline suicide in the states like the German wings crash.

Reply

[-]

4Sammich@reddit

~~Airlines~~ *Companies* would have 0 ~~pilots~~ *employees* if they could get away with it.

Reply

[-]

Donnie_Sharko@reddit

Every corporation in the world would have slaves if they were legally allowed to.

Reply

[-]

bottomfeeder52@reddit

imagine stepping onto the plane for vacation and the 67yr old gen X pilot who should have retired 5 years ago is the sole person responsible for you getting there alive.

Reply

[-]

Frager_1@reddit

In my country a captain flying a 121 flight 3 days ago passed away during flight and the first officer had to divert.... Single OPS will never happen.. it is not safe, it is not cost efficient, it is just stupid... Hopefully this will be stopped

Reply

[-]

Frager_1@reddit

In my country a captain flying a 121 flight passed away during flight and the first officer had to divert.... Single OPS will never happen.. it is not safe, it is not cost efficient, it is just stupid... Hopefully this will be stopped

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

I have an interesting take on all of this. I don’t think the airlines/industry actually think it will happen, but are pushing it to show they are exploring all avenues to increase profits to appease shareholders. It’s similar to all the AI hype currently happening. A company slaps “AI” into their quarterly earnings calls and greatly overstates its ability and the stock prices jump. It’s all just corporations gaming the system to juice stock prices. That said, Boeing and MCAS set any realistic single pilot or no pilot airliners back decades IMO.

Reply

[-]

LukiCharm_@reddit

This is a very interesting take I haven't thought about before. So many companies are just slapping "AI" on their websites and services when all it really is is just a fancier version of a google search. Also, the public is already paranoid as it is with aviation travel, with everything happening with Boeing. Would single pilot ops really put their mind at ease?

Reply

[-]

Kitchen-Giraffe1414@reddit

We are nowhere close to single pilot airliners. It is so far off it’s not worth thinking about. Certainly not worth career planning around it.

Reply

[-]

Ozkeewowow@reddit

I just don’t see this happening until our airspace and ATC procedures become much more consistent & predictable. Whether it’s DSM, JFK, or LHR, so much of this system relies on us in the flight deck making it happen. One pilot can’t make it happen in our current system.

Reply

[-]

Troj1030@reddit

What makes things more predictable are taking humans out of the equation. Humans are unpredictable. That's why human factors exist.

Reply

[-]

DragoDragunov@reddit

I think it is and it isn’t. I always look back to the days when we had flight engineers/ second officers. At the time I’m sure the very thought of replacing them was deemed preposterous. Airliners eventually did get to such a level of automation the second officer position was made redundant. That was going from 3 to 2 pilots Now the question is though, is it feasible to go from 2 to 1 pilot. The concept of only 1 pilot carries with it a litany of questions in my mind. The big ones would be: what happens in the case of a medical event? What happens in the case of intentional sabotage, like the German wings incident? What happens in the case of software glitch? All of these would need to face some serious scrutiny and pass through mounds of red tape. Short answer, what I foresee happening is flight decks will get increasingly more and more automated. And maybe like 20-30 years from now we may see single pilot ops in *some* applications. Maybe something like the removal of augmented crews/rp’s during long haul flights. There will be one pilot at the controls while the second crew member sleeps. No matter how you cut it though, it’s going to be along regulatory process and not something I consider an imminent threat to my career.

Reply

[-]

Independent-Reveal86@reddit

Our latest contract agreement requires two in the flight deck at all times. I don’t see single pilot in the cruise as a likely threat for us in the short term but it’s lot harder to remove a condition if it’s already in the contract.

Reply

[-]

yvery@reddit

Makes me curious what was the sentiment back in the days when fadec was introduced and it threatened the jobs of flight engineers.

Reply

[-]

No-Version-1924@reddit

And navigators when INS became standard.

Reply

[-]

No_Relationship4508@reddit

It's all well and good until one of these majors puts a 737 in the drink... I wish I could say it would surprise me, but I don't think it's implausible.

Reply

[-]

No-Version-1924@reddit

>It's all well and good until one of these majors puts a 737 in the drink... As if anyone (including regulators and airlines) is even considering flying the 737 single pilot.

Reply

[-]

No_Relationship4508@reddit

Given that it's probably the most ubiquitous airplane in the world, it certainly won't be the FIRST, I guarantee you that market is on someone's drawing board. But more importantly, you missed the relevance of my comment. The second we have ONE accident (on any transport category airplane... very likely to be a 737), the public outcry and ALPA led PR campaign for 2 pilots will put back single-pilot-ops years...

Reply

[-]

PotatoHunter_III@reddit

Some issues I'm thinking about single sest ops: >>1. It's not even about the errors, but the mental stability of a person as well. Unless we get to Minority Report levels of predicting outcomes, single seat pilot operations seems dangerous, especially when you're placing your life (and hundreds more) on the line. You could say ground based personal can have the power to lock someone out of the controls or some sort of AI preventing over control or malicious input. But even those things can fail or can be locked out. Why not leave the 2 people in there and add on these technologies and wait for the goddamn tech to mature? >>2. Training. Reason why we have a Capt-FO setting is that your FO is getting experience and training to someday become a Capt. How do you do that in a single seat ops? It's not a training environment per se, but a single crew working together. But typically Capts are far older and have more experience while FOs are newer. >>3. Going back to errors, you have two people who are working together, thinking and double checking each other's work. That's besides other personnel (ground, FAs, dispatch etc.) that work to make this flight happen. But the Capt and FO are your primary operators, especially when the flight is up in the air. Anyway, just weird why Airbus and EASA is pushing hard for single seat ops to happen. I can see that the technology is available. But is it mature? Secure?

Reply

[-]

Vagabondhonda@reddit

“Single pilot this dick and balls”- Juan Trippe. Seriously though there is no way the flying public will feel comfortable with one gray haired, morbidly obese 61 year old captain up front, and frankly they shouldn’t. There have been multiple instances over the last few years of one pilot becoming incapacitated and the second pilot bringing it in. Even trains need at least two crewmembers in the US. I’ll be impressed if this happens by the time I turn 65, if at all.

Reply

[-]

TemporaryAmbassador1@reddit

I find it a threat for many reasons, one not yet mentioned (or I didn’t notice it) was the AA contract was the only legacy contract recently passed that didn’t include 2 pilot language, and it was asked for. The company wouldn’t deny it if they weren’t interested in it.

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

You think APA actually pressed for 2 pilot language? They basically admitted they didn’t press it because they didn’t think it was that important because of how unlikely it is to happen. It wasn’t worth using negotiating leverage.

Reply

[-]

TemporaryAmbassador1@reddit

It was in a long list of things “they’ll get next time”

Reply

[-]

Smoopilot@reddit

I’d say it’s more a reflection of APAs incompetence than a sign of single pilot being a realistic threat. If not United and Delta wouldn’t have agreed to it. And let’s be honest, two pilot contract language isn’t going to stop them from doing what they want anyway.

Reply

[-]

TemporaryAmbassador1@reddit

Contracts are for enforcing on the working groups and for corporate to abuse and pay a fee when they choose to break it.

Reply

[-]

StangViper88@reddit

It’s a threat with augmented Crews, yes. Instead of three pilots to Europe, it could potentially become two. Four pilots to Asia/Africa/Far East could potentially become three. This is obviously a threat to the profession

Reply

[-]

bhalter80@reddit

Autonomous airliners are the future, when is the question. The mechanics of getting an airliner from A->B SP is the simplest of the problems they have to solve. They also need to solve for: * Crew rest in flight 6.5 hours SP then a quick turn for another 4 hours is a lot more fatiguing than doing that as a crew * Emergency situations/intervention potentially a remote pilot monitoring 10 flights over sat link or something * Crew training, it takes 1500 hours to be eligible to be an FO and then another 1000 as a 121 FO to be a CA. So you're looking at rethinking this entirely to be a start to finish 121 school or operating many flights with a CA + FO trainee anyway * Disturbance in flight where the flight crew needs to coordinate with the FAs while the plane is flown, this may be an RPO situation My guess is that this ends up being SP for part 91 ops first where they're repoing a plane and then work it from there

Reply

[-]

phatRV@reddit

From the military side, they have experimented with single pilot ops for the KC46. While they had a full crew, they flew the mission with only 1 pilot to simulate the wartime scenario condition. Not sure if the FAA will use this data for future regulation.

Reply

[-]

Picklemerick23@reddit

It’s profit over safety. It’s why Boeing is collapsing. Airbus is selling out to the airlines, predominately international carriers that hate their pilots, by saying “less pilots, less cost. Now hold my croissant and watch this”. Unions are too strong in the US and the FAA is too antiquated. It’ll be 20 years before this gets off the ground. Not the aircraft, but the implementation worldwide. Pun intended, too. Devils advocate, though, lots of accidents or incidents have been pilot error. On the flip, lots of accidents have been prevented due to pilots intervening. Regardless, I’d love to see AR and AI being implemented more in the flight deck.

Reply

[-]

KronesianLTD@reddit

I work as an Engineer at an Avionics company that supplies quite a lot of different types of jets. I will say, there have been discussions floating around into R&D of single pilot ops into the development of new avionics… however, I seriously doubt any of this will come anytime soon. Certification of anything is a pain already as it is, and I can’t imagine the amount of effort it would take to get some of our stuff ready for a single pilot.

Reply

[-]

Twa747@reddit

Airbus and EASA are actively working on certification. This is a threat, it is the closest alligator to the boat. 67 was complicated to say the least- special interest group subverting the majority But SPO in cruise is a threat. Cathy is already doing it and has been doing it. All they need is one to begin collecting the data. Once they have a little data they can continue to ramp up and collect more data. The progress will grow exponentially. Cargo first then everyone else 4 and 3 to 2 Then eventually 2 to 0

Reply

[-]

Guysmiley777@reddit

Single pilot 121 ops isn't happening in my lifetime. Feel free to quote me on it.

Reply

[-]

Sailass@reddit

Relevant question: What's the expected lifetime we are looking at here? If you are 70 that doesn't mean as much as it sounds ;)

Reply

[-]

wreck_it_nacho@reddit

Look how poorly manufacturing has become in the name.of profit.

Reply

[-]

Hdjskdjkd82@reddit

A side conversation. But how many sci fi future movies and TV do we see where humans are not involved. I think as a society we don’t want to envision a future where humans aren’t at the helm. Like plenty of things can probably be automated, but we are quickly entering the discussion of whether it should be. It kinda goes against the human spirit to automate certain things. Heck automakers are quietly sunsetting driverless cars because they are realizing it wouldn’t market well for the cost of development, and just sticking to “autopilots”.

Reply