Airbus now developing a single pilot a321.
Posted by Greedy_Camera_433@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 682 comments
To those considering to get into the industry now, really consider if this is a risk you want to take and make sure you have a back up plan.
nanos26@reddit
Profits above all else. Even your life apparently.
JM120897@reddit
This.
Companies have cheaped out on software a lot lately. If you compare how products were released back in the 2000s vs how are they released nowadays it's ridiculous how much the quality has decreased.
This is built upon the idea that the consumer has a very high tolerance threshold for faulty software and the mass-adoption of internet, so that it can be patched out easily.
With planes, the lowering in cost of the tickets and the subsequent lowering in safety (GermanWings-like incident), will be built in the public tolerance of weighing how much a human life is worth vs the costs of the tickets.
This is especially scary when thinking about a utilitarian type of society.
Anphsn@reddit
And they wanted to raise the retirement age to 67. Imagine a 65-67 year old up front and locked between a bullet proof door and 200 passengers
Price-x-Field@reddit
Those people should be running the country not flying planes!
findquasar@reddit
Well, for starters, they’ll have to come out every :30 to pee.
Anphsn@reddit
lol might as well just put the toilet in the jumpseat
TakingKarmaFromABaby@reddit
Nah piddle packs for every pilot.
Brambleshire@reddit
They said they are replacing the jumpseat with an inside the flight deck lav
Im_not_very_good@reddit
Go away! I'm Baitin!
ViceroyInhaler@reddit
Nah cause with single pilot ops you can just bring up a gaotorade bottle or two.
findquasar@reddit
I guess you didn’t read all of the text.
aftcg@reddit
Did you just call me old?
NordoPilot@reddit
God help all of us wide body FOs. Imagine 2 more years of additional babysitting. Ugh
PrimaryAlternative7@reddit
Fuck let's go ALPA keep fighting this stupid shit.
flyingwithfish24@reddit
This ain’t new sadly, airbus was pitching single pilot ops A321 freighters to FedEx like a year ago. Airbus has also been pitching the avionics system in the A320 NEOS is already ready for single pilot ops.
But if insurance looses their mind on a Citation being single pilot…this will be interesting on how they underwrite this.
lose_isnt_loose@reddit
lose_isnt_loose@reddit
mass_marauder@reddit
The backwards way politicians and CEOs think nowadays has me questioning how far fetched the possibility of single pilot 121 ops really is. It’s like the most logical, sane choice for any thing gets thrown out the window and instead the worst case option is selected. So sure, I expect the next administration and the FAA to approve single pilot A320 ops in 5 years. Call me crazy but nothing makes sense anymore.
metalgtr84@reddit
We’re in the “nothing matters” era for sure.
turbo-steppa@reddit
Well, except for cost. Cost matters.
falcongsr@reddit
I think you misspelled profit.
turbo-steppa@reddit
Nah, cost. I’ve seen too many times where larger profits could have been realised if the stingy person wasn’t so cost focused. It’s like an ego thing so something.
ypsipeasant@reddit
It's still a profit thing, it's a short term profits thing. Short term profits matter most, even at the expense of (theroetical) long term profits. Without short term profits and a never ending cushion of it, the continuing business and thus long term profits can't exist.
Miserable_Fig2425@reddit
Lmao stop being such a doomer
flyingforfun3@reddit
I’m genuinely curious how they make this work. O2 masks on at all times?
Not to mention the way this fucks up teaching FOs to become a captain. There’s much more to being PIC than just flying and monitoring.
In regard to the A350, how are you going to have long range single pilot ops?
You are right. Politicians and CEOs will push this, and not listen to the people in the industry. It’ll take an accident to turn it back.
TheLinuxMailman@reddit
Hmm. I wonder what politicians will be flying in?
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Won’t be single pilot ops that’s for sure
scholar97@reddit
This is what worries me. They’ll push single pilot ops through, accidents will happen due to mental errors or incapacitation, and they’ll find a way to blame it on pilots so they can save some money by not paying two of them.
Katerwaul23@reddit
Then since it's 'the pilot's fault' they'll get rid of pilots altogether and now programmers from the lowest-paying countries will be flying the planes.
Turkstache@reddit
The path is pretty clear, even though they're not going to be popular for pilots.
Airliners already have pretty robust tracking systems. It's enough that, right now, many jets can report the actuation of pretty much any cockpit switch and change in aircraft status on real time.
The pilots will be PF for launch and recovery, PM airborne. The final authority for 90% of decisions to the ground and automate the shit out of all airborne tasks. There will be redundancy requirements for aircraft tracking, and loss of tracking for x period of time will be considered a Land As Soon As Practical emergency and probably have procedures to reach sanctuary altitudes and airspace.
ATC and Dispatch and FMS will acheive full integration such that commands to the jets will be more akin to notifications to the pilot/operations. ATC commands a heading... the jet starts turning. Any pilot/operations interference will be a reportable event.
Safeguards against near-misses and other SA that now relies on human thought will be automated. ATC may command a heading but the controllers' software will handle the details - jets will steer themselves as required to maintain safety bubbles.
Pilots will eventually be able to sleep, but if monitoring is lost or there are pressurization issues, an alarm will sound to wake the pilot up but the plane will already be diverting.
Training will be heavy on sims and jumpseats. IOE will have a priority monitored aircraft.
Nothing about this is insurmountable. All of the other details of flying will be automated and supervised on the ground. If you can't fathom how engineers and lawmakers will tackle each issue, you're not being creative enough.
flyingforfun3@reddit
Did you write the same type of article for supersonic airliners returning?
You forgot two major hurdles: Public perception and insurance.
Master_Cucumber_1667@reddit
Public perception just needs time. The generation who can’t accept single pilot will eventually die and move on.
aftcg@reddit
Sad and true. Just like the boomers generation, thankfully
Turkstache@reddit
The public will be swayed. They've been persuaded into doing much dumber shit. Case in point... two weeks ago. Also this admin is going to love bringing shit like this to the US. All the ALPA and APA guys that voted for them are in for a rude awakening. Capitalists don't even need full public consent, they'll manufacture it like they're doing right now.
Insurance will come around. They too will feel the squeeze by governments and face the propaganda problem.
I am not writing in support of single pilot airline ops, but I promise you every single hurdle redditors can come up with is being thinktanked and focus grouped to death by people with much more time, energy, and funding than us.
Grand-Amphibian-3887@reddit
In the scenario you describe, with ATC, Dispatch, and the FMC all working together, just pushed it back 30 years. We are talking about the same US FAA run airspace that is decades behind in technology and upgrades right? Not to worry most pilots flying now will never see it.
Turkstache@reddit
That would be a final stage goal (and selling point for starting now) but I don't think it would be required for a trial run, especially in the domestic cargo market.
The military has multiple models for single pilot operations or extended operations with limited crew. When you get a B-2 flying for multiple days in a row with only two crew, a good amount of that time is spent single pilot already. In an emergency one can wake up the other. In a single pilot airline emergency, the operations center will be there to do the same (and probably command the jet with one guy while the pilot throws switches in comes with another). Fighters are flown plenty with single pilots for super long durations (without drugs, we don't get those outside deployments) and the workload overall is much higher and autopilot and nav rudimentary. Emergencies can be just as challenging.
This really isn't that farfetched. All of the examples exist for the interested companies to pull from. I guarantee they'll pay some willing test pilots obscene amounts of money to develop and sell the processes.
alb92@reddit
Long haul is perhaps the place it will work.
2 for takeoff, 1 for cruise and 2 for landing.
Making a 3 crew, if not a 4 crew operation into a 2 crew operation.
flyingforfun3@reddit
Between having to offset, and issues that can arise during cruise. I don’t think that’s a great idea.
If all 3 generators fail on the challenger 300, and you are down to battery power, the checklist is a monster to attempt to do on our own. I can’t imagine having that scenario over water.
Frothyleet@reddit
Oh, it's easy. They will just require any captains-to-be to fly second seat for free for a few hundred flights until they are "qualified" to be a solo pilot!
Heck, the airlines mostly get the benefits of two pilots, but still don't have to pay FOs!
This prediction brought to you by our spiral into horrifying dystopia
flyingforfun3@reddit
Bam! You ended the pilot shortage forever. Make wages low again!
Dinosaur_Wrangler@reddit
Make peasants poor again!
Sommern@reddit
I think by the point we get single pilot ops in airliners we will have had a civil war or a revolution by then rendering air travel moot anyways. Seriously what do they think is gonna happen when you automate everyones job away and unemployment goes up to 40%?
Frothyleet@reddit
The unemployed people will vote republican, because their problems are being caused by immigrants and trans people.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
This is the part I never understand about this idea and those pushing for it, it assumes the single pilot remaining will be a 10,000 hour grey haired super experienced captain
As someone that has done line training relatively recently it seems absurd to me the idea that day 1 out of line training you’d be expected to be PIC of a 200+ seat aircraft operating in some of the most congested airspace/airports in the world
This is also highly reductive- flying/monitoring is only a tiny part of the job. The day to day of airline flying is valid much more than the act of flying- you’ve got to be able to lead the cabin, you’ve got to deal with dispatchers, ground crews, airport authorities, operations etc etc.
And the last part is commercial operations are by their nature dynamic and you have to be able to make safe calls in real time- decision making is inherently an experience thing, how do you build that up if you’re ok your own every day after line training? Every day is a learning day in the right hand seat, almost every captain has a tid bit or two to share
The job would also be a lot more boring on your own and this itself is a risk- in the 320/321 at my airline we do 4/5+ hour sectorsx2 many running deep into the night, I would definitely be snoozing if I was left on my own on some of these….
Black000betty@reddit
Its not backwards thinking, its not illogical or out of touch. We have to realize that with these CEOs, politicians and such, they are simply playing by different rules.
They aren't going to FAFO, they're going to profit as long as they can. Moving this direction is a calculated risk where everyone EXCEPT the pilots and passengers aboard stand to profit.
Miserable_Fig2425@reddit
You’re crazy, can’t imagine an airline pilot being this manipulated by the media but here we are.
ebfortin@reddit
We live in a clown world. Better to laugh about it.
gussyhomedog@reddit
Some airport in Texas (can't remember which one) is making a bunch of improvements and partnering with a Californa company for pilot-less air-taxi service. The FAA is gonna have a field day with that one.
ELON_WHO@reddit
loses
Tiny-Let-7581@reddit
Controller here. I had a medical emergency with a UAL flight a while back. One of the pilots apparently had a stroke mid flight.
I know it’s not the first time but i never saw anything about it in the news. I sure as hell won’t be allowing myself or my family to get on any airplanes that are single pilot operated.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Doesn’t even have to be anything as extreme as that
I know of multiple events in my airline where a pilot has become ‘incapacitated’ because of gastrointestinal issues and spent the entire flight in the Lav, it’s surprisingly common and whilst it’s a mayday it’s a perfectly manageable even with 2 crew, with 1 it becomes a potential catastrophe
Soft-Butterfly-7923@reddit
They're not going to go to 1 crew member.
They're going to go to 2 crew members for critical phases, 1 pilot during cruise. So on the ultra long haul flights you cut down from 3 crew to 2, or 4 to 3.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
This is for the 321, how many 321s are operated with 3 crew?
vagasportauthority@reddit
I am pretty sure the article title is a bit clickbait they aren’t making a single pilot A321 they are making an A320 / A321 replacement that would be single pilot capable. Not a great idea anyways but from everything I have heard form multiple sources besides that pitch they made to Airbus for a potential single pilot capable A321 freighter (which Airbus has said may not even see the light of day) I don’t think they are going to be making a SPO A321
flightist@reddit
Plenty of XLRs will run augments, for what it’s worth.
iwantmoregaming@reddit
Probably because their passenger loads will have to be so low to be able to carry enough fuel to have segment lengths long enough to justify an augmented crew, they wouldn’t be able to afford the second pilot.
flightist@reddit
It would appear to be capable of flying about 4 hours past the point where my airline is obligated to augment with certain departure times, so I’d bet it can carry a real load well into that range.
If it can’t, we’ll know when the first few operators freak the fuck out.
iwantmoregaming@reddit
My only reference point was my company backing out of them because of the pax load/range numbers not working out.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Sure but then this move is more aimed at that for marketing purposes more than making A320s single pilot operations which will just not happen but even then I can’t see it getting much traction outside of the Wizzairs of the world
flightist@reddit
My airline was approached to be a lead on this shit and unambiguously shot them down. But I don’t doubt for a second that the board of directors wanted to see what was up.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Yeah many will shoot them down but plenty won’t especially in Asia and certain parts of Europe. That said there’s a reason you augment crews and either the market will address this or there will be safety implications longer term…
flightist@reddit
Yep. Somebody will take them up on it, it just won’t be a North American airline.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Agreed.
There’s already wide body operators in Europe that are dropping the augments for sectors where North Americans wouldn’t fly less than 3/4 crew
PurpleCableNetworker@reddit
As long as there is a spot for both pilots in case of emergencies, then I’m fine. During cruise it’s mainly flown by auto pilot anyway. As long as both are involved during take off and landing, I’m ok with it.
SwissMargiela@reddit
I used to watch a whole bunch of pilot vlog channels and yeah I remember this one pilot regularly flew to a city deep in northern India and he said he’d either fast or bring his own food because not a single thing he ate out there wouldn’t fuck up his stomach for a few days.
TheLinuxMailman@reddit
That's what CAT3 autolands are for.
Right?
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
No? That’s a lot more than just pressing one button. If a pilot is incapacitated you still need to be able to set that up, navigate to a suitable airport, communicate with ATC etc
ILikeFlyingAlot@reddit
Maybe the flight attendant can push the land now button.
BigBlackHungGuy@reddit
Garmin is on it.
Accidentallygolden@reddit
To be fair, there do that on those new cirrus, there is an emergency autoland button
Smartnership@reddit
That’s First Officer Flight Attendant now, TYVM
kristenjaymes@reddit
FOFA gonna FAFO
flyingwithfish24@reddit
That’s First Officer purser to you bub!….now do you want a stroopwaffel or not!
falcongsr@reddit
Military drone operators can take over the plane.
p33k4y@reddit
The type of single pilot operations being proposed will still entail having multiple pilots on the airplane. But some phases of the flight (e.g., portions of the cruise) can be operated by a single pilot.
Today many long-haul flights are operated by two pilots plus up to two additional relief pilots. So with single pilot operations there may be only 2 pilots on board instead of up to 4.
TheSkyFlier@reddit
Insurance for a single pilot Airbus is probably less than paying another pilot.
Choconilla@reddit
230+ people’s lives at the hands of a single tired pilot with a shitty computer watching them plow it into the ground from fatigue and loss of SA.
WorkingOnPPL@reddit
Also, what if the single tired pilot has the shits?
Smartnership@reddit
Depends on the pilot
aftcg@reddit
Underrated comment
Sommern@reddit
Well since California legalized slavery last month I propose we type rate prison inmates and have them sit in a glass box where the FO used to sit. If the CA becomes incapacitated the FA can smash the glass box open with a hammer and the ~~slave~~ emergency relief volunteer will land the aircraft safely.
If you can fight a forest fire you can land an Airbus!!
Brambleshire@reddit
Don't worry, they are replacing the jumpseat with a restroom facility inside the flight deck.
chuckop@reddit
If single pilot certification comes for pax aircraft, I guarantee you’ll see remotely piloted cargo flights soon after.
Crusoebear@reddit
People seem to have this weird notion that freighters carry only pillows and nerf footballs. My 74 flights are routinely packed to the gills with hazmat of every nasty chemical/flamable/acid/carcinogen/explosive, etc known to man, cheap lithium batteries, military munitions, etc, etc. And that's on top of hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel. I've also had way more autopilot failures than I care to think about (on top of the potentially life/property threatening lists of known anomalies that take many years to get fixed...only to have new unknown anomalies take their place, like an endless game of Whack-a-Mole) - including autopilots simply turning themselves off for no apparent reason in calm air...with no EICAS or aural alerts. I've also had an autopilot failure on an honest to goodness CAT III approach at very low altitude over a populated area.
I am in the single digits now till retirement. I'm glad I don't have to wonder what they'll be cooking up in 20, 30 or 40+ years from now. The CEO's & bean counters salivate like Pavlov's dog when they think of pilot compensation that they want to divert into their own pockets. And the incoming administration is already saying they plan on reducing the safety requirements on automated vehicles (as a payback for First Buddy/Space Karen who can't seem to figure out how to meet the current requirements) - so you know where their head is at. It's a race to the lowest common denominator.
The sad part is this is almost entirely just an ill-conceived solution in search of a problem - as aviation is as safe or safer than it's ever been. Thanks in large part to pilots who they now want to discard. It's all about the Benjamins now...Safety be damned.
Good luck everyone.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
I feel pilots have to take some of the blame too, letting the insidious idea that all we do is ‘push a button’ become accepted by the majority of the public has opened the door to this
It’s almost inevitable this would lead to some horrible outcomes as the experienced guys age out of the pilot pool
Hemenway@reddit
Maybe for passenger service but not cargo
Choconilla@reddit
Folks on the ground are scumbags anyway.
DZDEE@reddit
Don’t forget the fatigued and underpaid ATCers. The FAA has a huge morale problem right now with 25% of the workforce eligible to retire in about 8 years. The timing couldn’t be worse.
Choconilla@reddit
My thoughts too. With all the near misses and holes shown in the system (not ATC’s personal fault mind you), it’s almost cartoonishly stupid.
tmdarlan92@reddit
And a union that is basically worthless. As we watch (and support) our aviation colleagues get 30-50% raises.
10tonheadofwetsand@reddit
Not to mention suicidal/homicidal pilots that want to turn out the lights for themselves and everyone on board. Not a hypothetical…
Germanwings 9525
ATACB@reddit
Almost daily in the airbus !
TheSkyFlier@reddit
I’m not trying to argue it’s a good thing, I just think companies will always do the objectively worst thing in favor of short term profit.
CptSandbag73@reddit
Um, most mishaps are pilot error, sweaty. So obviously getting rid of ALL the pilots will solve the issue.
/s
This is why it’s so critical for aircrew to report new misses and how they were avoided. If you don’t quantify near misses, you get the inverse problem of the WW2 bomber bullet holes.
EsquireRed@reddit
Until the first accident.
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Zero chance of this. Especially after the first accident.
drillbit56@reddit
Hopefully it occurs on the ground as a result of a missed configuration that leads to a badly executed RTO that damages the aircraft with no injuries.
clarkmueller@reddit
It might be, at least until after a few crashes.
ExtremePast@reddit
*loses
Loose is the opposite of tight.
flyingwithfish24@reddit
Thanks 🤙
iflyfreight@reddit
My understanding is that airlines self insure their fleet
TigasFan@reddit
It’s so over
CharliesFlyingAngel@reddit
Nope
Jessica02904@reddit
We all knew this was coming as FMCS and more reliable engines have replaced the flight engineer.
classaceairspace@reddit
"operational cost savings could outweigh higher insurance premiums, encouraging adoption."
Aka: it's unsafe but companies will do it because of the most important thing: Money
Frothyleet@reddit
That is one of the most mask-off horrifying public depictions of the intrinsic problems of capitalism that I've every seen. Airbus, and airlines, and anyone lobbying for single-pilot policies, are simply saying "yes it's obviously less safe, which will have costs, but we believe the profits will exceed the costs." Which is probably true, and that's the goal of any public corporation.
The "costs", of course, include the costs of recompensing passenger families or anyone else injured or killed by the policy.
Like, when Chevy decided lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing the Corvair catastrophic safety issues, they didn't put it in a goddam press release.
ypsipeasant@reddit
It's the goal of every "private" capitalist corporation, too, maybe just in a more roundabout way. I know this is America, and there was a Cold War, but since that's over we can see Marx spelled it out quite a while ago.. let's not just blame this on shareholders. Business executives, public or private, small or large, will always seek profit as the ultimate consideration because without it they cannot sustain the business itself and thus their livelihoods.
Frothyleet@reddit
I mean, ya, but you have to couch it comfortably for the audience
LastSprinkles@reddit
In capitalism consumers can also choose to vote with their wallets. But to your point maybe most people prefer cheap to slightly safer.
Frothyleet@reddit
It has been demonstrated consistently throughout American history that consumers will always choose the cheaper but less safe option.
That is one of the primary reasons we have regulatory bodies for so many industries. Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones - car manufacturers could save money dropping safety features, and the market would consume the hell out of the cheaper product. So our regulatory bodies mandate safety features and standards once they reach a certain point of economy - which also makes those features cheaper as economies of scale kick in.
If Spirit could get their prices cheaper by stretching out their inspection and service life intervals, and by ditching pricey training programs, and by calculating fuel loads to target having their pilots do all their landings with engines out... people would buy the hell out of those super-economy tickets.
Honestly, it's not even as simple as "consumers dumb." For one, it's really just a minority of the population that is competent at risk evaluation. It's been studied a lot recently in response to vaccine "skepticism" in the last few years.
And even if people are OK at it, they just don't have enough information to make evaluations. When they search for a flight from LA to NY, there won't be an itemized list of the distinctions between the $50 Spirit flight and the $500 Delta flight. If anything, they just see the customer-facing stuff - smaller seats, baggage fees, having to peddle to keep the wings flapping, whatever.
_tpscrt_@reddit
The saddest thing about deregulation is that in a capitalist economy, the ultimate goal of a company is to reduce costs as much as they can. Money is the only factor that matters. Human lives don't matter one bit.
The only hope is that when 250-300 people die, the class-action lawsuit against both the airline and Airbus is such a high number that it would cripple the company's ability to exist. Unfortunately, because of the state of US politics, regulation to keep a 2nd pilot on-board could further allow for the impending disaster.
darthcoder@reddit
People need to spend actual jail time when decisions cost lives.
That's the only thing that will stop this insanity. When the CXOs and the Board of Directors spend time in actual prison....
Life for a life. At least they'll be able to live theirs to its natural end.
_tpscrt_@reddit
It's tough because corporate decisions are rarely ever the decision of a single individual. In regards to intentionally ignoring safety protocols and inherently building a dangerous product, I do agree with you, though.
Moreso, I think that what needs to happen is that actually severe fines need to be imposed on the at-fault party. Fines large enough that it will take 10-15 years to pay off the debt. At that point, the long-term financial health of the company is at stake, and that's the only time they'll start to pay attention to actual human beings.
classic_lurker@reddit
Perhaps you missed something, when you’re such a huge employer and have government contracts, you’re too big too fail, bail-outs are real.
Alarmed-Syllabub8054@reddit
Only 5 years after MCAS and people post hyperbole like this.
Sydneysweenysboobs@reddit
The salary savings will be greater than the cost of the lawsuit when 200 people die
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
You kill 200 nowadays your airline is toast.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Doubtful. The Max issues almost bankrupted Boeing
It would take but one incident and this idea would put the airline/manufacturer on their knees
nguyenm@reddit
Whose making the salary saving is the better question given Airbus themselves wouldn't be the one to benefit from that gain, but bear all of the risks.
I've seen videos of Cirius with Garmin stuff mounted on performing basically an emergency descent & land at the nearest suitable airport from a single button in the case of it's single pilot of unresponsive but the passengers were. The technology is there, just regulatory approval at this point. FOs like me will be jobless in due time.
LastSprinkles@reddit
It depends on exactly what goes wrong. If eg the sensors feeding information to the AI are broken then it might be tough to save the plane without a pilot. Especially on Airbus planes, I heard they require a lot of concentration to fly accurately when in direct law (which is also when the AI is likely to act up). Imagine not having anyone next to you who can go through the checklist at least while you're flying.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
If you’re type rated on the 320 you have practised direct law, it’s not how the plane is meant to be flown that’s for sure but it’s more than doable, a competent crew are not going to lose the aircraft because they can’t fly in direct law
How can a computer disregard spurious sensor indications? In AF447 the AP disconnected itself because of the PITOT getting blocked leading to unreliable airspeed- a computer is only as good as the data it receives. Stupid in, stupid out
nguyenm@reddit
For human pilot, direct law due to degraded instruments isn't that bad as it's regularly an item during the biannual operator checks. I'd say a computer can be programmed and tested with unusable parameters, but the bottleneck here is it's unlikely to catch its own errors. Also, whenever there's a multitude of system warnings like hydraulic in tandem with an existing MEL then the single pilot can be SOL.
Humans are still use two eyeballs on a gimbal as their only input to the world. So I suspect there exist a model where the aircraft can safely fly to an extent with just attitude and power settings. As long as it can limps to an ILS signal then you're safe and gold. I think I can say with the existence of the Backup Speed Scale/BUSS, a programmed AP can probably "stay in the green" better than a human can.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Just marketing I guess on the first line- plenty of (smaller) planes are certified for single pilot ops but in the real world operated multi crew
As for your last line absolutely not- FOs are future captains, airlines can’t afford to get rid of them even if single pilot ops were around the corner
gasp_@reddit
We'll be right mate. If flying was about flying Captains and FOs would have no difference. Can the AI effectively manage on ground delays from external influences? Bloody catering isn't loaded! Duty limits on other crew members. Flight Attendants dealing with an unruly customer who spent too long in the lounge :P
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Yeah I’ve made a similar comment above
How can a fresh off line training FO be expected to manage a turnaround and 4-15 cabin crew whilst managing tech difficulties and operational issues? It’s a huge ask just to save a few thousand dollars (per flight). Doesn’t even make sense when you think about it practically- now the FO has to do both PF and PM tasks on a turn? We just about manage that as it is with 2 crew and delegating tasks, and what’s the point in cross checking if apparently only 1 guy can handle it all?
A solution without a problem
TweetGuyB@reddit
It’s not even a few thousand per flight The most any FO makes is 2000 usd a day 3 flights a day is $600 per flight
HyFinated@reddit
Isn’t there a pilot shortage? All those FO’s will be moved up and the airlines will fly more single pilot flights since there will be about double the staffing at that point.
TweetGuyB@reddit
There isn’t a shortage anymore
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
without GPS that auto landing system is totally useless. and we have state actors who would be more than happy to destroy civil satellite navigation.
nguyenm@reddit
A lot of aircraft avionics predates the existence of GNSS/GPS, and the inertial reference system can be "good enough" in the case of a total gps loss.
Autolands, afaik, do not rely on any GPS usage the moment they've captured the proper glide slope and localizer signal. Getting to the intercept might be relied on GPS as part of an approach but if an ATC can somehow direct an automated system with pilot incap, then it can just interpret digital beeps and boops over the analog radio signal (imagine dial up) to fly headings.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
INS has been removed from most ‘modern’ airframes for cost reasons so while yes an INS is capable they just are not there because everyone wanted the ‘God Box’ in the sky.
the Obama administration shut down the LORAN upgrade to eLORAN because Sen Harry Reid’s buddies wanted the transmitter site in Sparks NV for some real estate development and we had GPS anyway. So now we have a fragile space based system with no practical backup
Difference of course is GPS is easy to jam while eLORAN was virtually impossible.
paid_shill_3141@reddit
Alternatively 200 people live when the automation stops the pilot doing something stupid.
Sorry, I’ve been watching too much Mentour.
farouq_hassan@reddit
Are we really not gonna acknowledge this guys username lmao
PilotPazza@reddit
The picture to go with it too, top notch stuff
blitzroyale@reddit
This comment explains why FAs don't date pilots lol
jami354@reddit
FAs dont date pilots? Ive heard otherwise lol
Yuri909@reddit
I know pilots who married a FA lmao
aftcg@reddit
[Rolls up sleeves, takes phone off of belt and ties new balance shoes, prepping for a fight] And just what do you think is so funny about that?
Plane-Ask@reddit
Should have been bazongas
UtahMan69@reddit
He’s def a pylot and fucks
Fr00tman@reddit
Looks like ATC. Probably pretty plugged into how stupid having one pilot trying to handle something that can be really challenging for 2 to deal with is.
NoProfession8024@reddit
In acknowledge them all the time
WestDuty9038@reddit
Somehow not an NSFW account, I’m impressed.
Ironclad-360@reddit
“When” is wild bro
dfelton912@reddit
r/rimjobsteve
You-get-the-ankles@reddit
In an air disaster, the average life is worth 13 million dollars.
Iceman411q@reddit
Pilot salaries are cheap compared to the profit they output, one lawsuit over an incident that might not even be the fault of having only one pilot and all that publicity and legal fees already makes it not worth the salary savings.
Bravo-Buster@reddit
1 Captain cost is over $1M/yr. If the insurance increase is less than that, then it's an easy financial decision.
Airlines don't pay damages. Insurance companies do. The risk is not on the Airline.
Iceman411q@reddit
Over $1m a year?
Bravo-Buster@reddit
Yeah. Over $1M. Total compensation (salary, overheads, taxes, per diem, retirement, etc). It's easily over $1M when it's all factored in. Direct pay isn't the only thing to consider.
Iceman411q@reddit
If the salary was $200k and the hotel room costed $400 a night even every single night of the year plus a pension that wouldnt be that close to 1m still
Bravo-Buster@reddit
Captains atanors don't make $200k salary.
But, what about the company overheads that are a cost per person to the company? Health insurance? Personnel taxes? There's a ton more costs involved with having staff that aren't paid directly to the staff, and it's usually 100% to 150% of the salary to the staff. When you cut staff, you don't just cut salary costs, all the others are cut, too.
Example: I'm a meager Civil Engineer earning roughly $250k/yr. My cost to the company in overheads is another $355k for a total of $605k/yr to employ me. If I made $400k, it would cost my company $968k to employee me.
So yeah, when a 1st yr Major Carrier Captain makes over $300k, and averages are a lot higher, it absolutely costs more than $1M per each of them.
ottoisagooddog@reddit
Over $1M/yr sounds unreasonable, except in some very extreme cases. Can you elaborate?
Also, insurance companies pay the damage, but they also charge higher for...well, anything they perceive as being unsafe. So there is a possibility that the insurances will be higher than keeping the FO.
Bravo-Buster@reddit
Pretend you pay someone $400k salary. You also pay ~400k+ for overheads (company overhead, benefits, retirement, employment taxes, per diems, etc). By the time you add it all up, I'd be willing to bet it's well over $1M on average for Captains at a major carrier.
Revolutionary_Ad3850@reddit
Tell that to Pinnacle or Colgan
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Last time I checked, pilot error was far and away the biggest cause of airline incidents...
30625@reddit
Maybe pilots are also the biggest cause for incident prevention…
FormulaJAZ@reddit
If you had access to airline FOQA data, you would be appalled.
It is truly shocking there hasn't been a major airline accident in this country in over 20 years given how many close calls we've had.
One of the more recent ones that became public was the 777 that flew within a couple hundred feet of the ocean because of pilot disorientation.
Another is the 777 that taxied in front of a 737 taking off in NYC.
These are just two out of hundreds of examples of pilot incompetence almost crashing airplanes that didn't leak out.
Reading FOQA reports would make you feel a lot different.
Healthy_Awareness_98@reddit
Yesterday we had to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly an ILS because the LOC started to wildly drift off of the centreline (we were visual). yea pilot error happens, but pilots also save aircraft from themselves every single day. We aren't a bunch of morons.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Autoland requires triple redundancy. So yeah, a flaky LOC won't be an issue for an autonomous flight.
aftcg@reddit
What systems are triple redundant that will decide that the LOC is flaky? Will it be fail passive or fail operational? Also, how will autoland work on non ILS runways?
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Tripple redundancy means three independent systems check each other. If one system shows inconsistent results versus the other two, the oddball is disregarded, and the flight continues using the two systems that agree.
CAT III procedures have used this method to successfully autoland airplanes in 0-0 for nearly 50 years, so it isn't new. (The Space Shuttle also used this setup for launch and landing. If it's good enough for the Space Shuttle, surely it can work for airliners.)
As for ILS, if a pilot can land on a runway, a computer can do the same thing, both visually or by instrumentation. It really isn't a big deal technologically.
Healthy_Awareness_98@reddit
You're missing the point. Pilots intervene all the time to save the computer from itself. It's smart yes, but it does so many dumb things all the time. Jumping from 2 to 1 is just increasing the risk somthing gets missed.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Exactly, it’s selection bias to the extreme to only look at the incidents caused by pilots
Literally 100s of events over the world must happen monthly where pilots have intervened from automation potentially causing a catastrophic event
A few months ago I had a similar incident, AP in and we captured a false glide slope that was driving us in -10 degrees, -2500fpm at 3000ft. Naturally first outcome was to disconnect and execute a GA
I’ve only been on the line about a year and I’ve seen the AP needing to be disconnected 2 times, extrapolate that to an entire career and multiply that by 10,000s and it’s a LOT more than the handful of ‘pilot error’ incidents
aftcg@reddit
Former gatekeeper and current 767 checkairman here. FOQA data only captures data that is programmed to be captured. So, it only collects data outside of the parameters that are set by whomever is running the FOQA program. It does not collect data from actions by the crew that avoid threats and correct errors - because that's not how a FOQA program works. It can't see the preventative actions by the crew. Gotta have a LOSA program to collect that data.
30625@reddit
I do have access to FOQA data, that is why I wrote this comment! Absolutely true that pilots also do a lot of mistakes (still waiting for my first flight without any), but guess what: if you remove the pilots, who is then responsible for the mistakes? Next logical step would be the removal of what?
ASAPdUrmom@reddit
Obviously not a pilot eh?
Almost always when a major mishap occurs it's because the final link in the chain (pilots) has broken. Airline safety systems are very robust and multilayered and for an incident to occur, the holes must align through a thick block of swiss cheese.
We hear about pilot error causing the two major airline accidents in the last two decades (US) But you don't hear about pilot capture every leg, every day, every month, every year.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
I take it you don't have access to your company's FOQA data.
After reading all of the close calls due to pilot incompetence, it is truly shocking we haven't had a major accident in this country in 20 years.
Just look at the ones that have become public, like a fully functional 777 getting within a couple hundred feet of the Pacific Ocean because of spatial disorientation. Or the 777 that taxied in front of a 737 on a take-off roll. Those only scratch the surface of close calls that don't leak out.
ASAPdUrmom@reddit
Actually I was A DLCA/management pilot involved with dozens of investigations at the biggest regional in the country. I understand your contrarian/pessimistic view point, that company had well over 2500 departures a day and not one single major mishap in 5.5 years while I was in that role. 4.5 million departures. Sure, there are some knuckleheads out there. But we have still created one of the safest industries in the world.
Gotta be honest I wouldn't want you anywhere near FOQA data with your shit attitude. I'm sure you're one helluva pilot advocate. Everyone can have a bad day including you.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Humans are far and away the weakest link in the chain. Especially when you consider 1 out of 100 flights has two bottom 10%ers at the controls.
For every 232 or Miracle on the Hudson, there are 100 crews screwing up and putting a plane full of passengers at risk. Thankfully, the system built from blood makes it really hard for incompetent/distracted/fatigued pilots to crash an airplane.
whiskeypapa72@reddit
Which is exactly why there are two. You could attempt your argument in supporting a move from some pilots to no pilots, but you're supporting the counter argument in a move from two to one.
Calm-Frog84@reddit
Well, there is an ongoing campaign againts SPO which advertize "One means none." So if 2 to 1 is the same as 2 to 0, does that invalidate your invalidation of his argument?
One means none
whiskeypapa72@reddit
No, it just means an organization oversimplified their slogan lol
FormulaJAZ@reddit
This is an old joke
The cockpit of the future will be one pilot and one dog. The pilot's job is to oversee the automation and take over in case anything happens. The dog's job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.
iHateReddit_srsly@reddit
If Airbus implements AI effectively in the design, it doesn't have to be more unsafe. I think it's definitely a step in the right direction to make air travel cheaper
attempted-anonymity@reddit
Except that's not how insurance works. Airlines may not be doing the math, but their insurance companies employ buildings full of actuaries who are going to set premiums for airlines who fly only one pilot somewhere in the neighborhood of premiums for bars that like to run "who can get the drunkest" competitions.
yorgee52@reddit
Airlines are not doing the math? They are most definitely doing the math.
dinoguys_r_worthless@reddit
higher risk=higher premiums
jimrooney@reddit
That's when we apply "the formula".
vipck83@reddit
Reminds me of fight club when the car companies only issue recalls if the cost of the law suits is higher then the cost of a recall.
verstohlen@reddit
I saw Fight Club. Single Serving Friends, man.
whiskey_thurs@reddit
“Operational cost savings could outweigh higher insurance premiums” is kind of dystopian once you unwrap it.
clarkmueller@reddit
An airline earnings call 5 years from now: “It’s okay if a few passengers die, so long as it’s cheaper for them to die than it is for us to hire a second pilot.” 🙃
ypsipeasant@reddit
"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make"
(- Lord Farquaad)
Vihurah@reddit
this is literally the verbatim language i remember reading in case studies for my sophomore engineering ethics class. these people never learn.
I_ALWAYS_UPVOTE_CATS@reddit
"The money we could save is more important than the determination of an increased risk."
bloxoss@reddit
The a350?? But how can one do a huge overnight flight solo? It seems unfeasible for now
Abject_Natural@reddit
lets ask the paying passengers what they think haha
pipesIAH@reddit
I mean the planes basically fly themselves right? And my ticket will be $10 cheaper?!
Airbus were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
das_thorn@reddit
Conversely: "Eww, Boeings? Those have that scary MCAS system, I won't fly on that!"
CorrectPhotograph488@reddit
Tickets will be the same price, and airline executives will make more money haha
pipesIAH@reddit
Does this mean I'll get $10 more in profit sharing? Sign me up!
findquasar@reddit
No. Because profit comes after executive salaries. Those are costs.
NuttPunch@reddit
They’re mostly ignorant cattle. Asking passengers is pointless.
Abject_Natural@reddit
Very true but raise that public awareness and you’ll soon see a lot of people will prefer two pilots. I honestly would lol at humanity if this passes bc you’re literally willing to accumulate pieces of paper over human life - wow
JustAcleanAccount@reddit
The average passenger already thinks planes fly by themselves with absolutely no input by the pilot (all the pilot does is push a button and it does everything from takeoff to landing).
NordoPilot@reddit
Why is the “it’s so easy” crowd not airline pilots already? Just push the autopilot button and then start your $250K-$500K legacy career! /s
Im2bored17@reddit
"I want to be home nights and weekends"
FilmScoreMonger@reddit
Anyone stupid enough to get on a flight captained by one pilot deserves the in-flight emergency that will inevitably happen.
Troj1030@reddit
You underestimate people. Give them internet and a blanket and they are pacified.
Troj1030@reddit
Most people wont care if their tickets are cheaper to sell the idea initally.
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
Anyone who flys one of these solo is a fucking scab.
Infamous_Swan978@reddit
People get onto a bus with one driver, what’s the difference? These planes are so automated these days they basically fly themselves. They already have taxis that don’t have a driver at all and they get you from A to B no problem, with way more unpredictables (pedestrians, cars, garbage, etc) in the way. This is the future unfortunately, like it or not
Agreeable-Gap-4160@reddit
Based on your opening question, thankfully, you clearly have no involvement with risk management.
The fact that you can't see the different levels of inherent risk is what drives your question.
Infamous_Swan978@reddit
Yea I clearly don’t and you do, right? Hence why they’re developing it.
DanManRT@reddit
I won't be getting on those planes, period. How many times have we had a "pilot incapacitated" lately. Food poisoning, heart attacks, suicide, etc. One pilot operations is the worst idea ever for a commercial airline company.
Drive_By_Shouting@reddit
Otto Pilot 👋
kirksan@reddit
I regularly ride in driverless Waymo cabs, I would never fly in a single pilot airliner though. Maybe they can get away with it for freight, but even then I think they’d need remote landing capability.
drrhythm2@reddit
I’m middle aged and I’m concerned that at some point before I retire this is going to be a problem.
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Zero chance it's going to be an issue if you're middle ages and already in the industry. It'll be 20-30 years before this becomes even remotely common.
Anphsn@reddit
Am I cooked if I’m in my 20s
Drunkenaviator@reddit
That's 40+ years out. There's no way to accurately predict what any of the world will be like by then. We could be just teleporting at that point.
TheA321Channel@reddit
15 here currently doing my SPL, I think I need backup plans :/
TheA321Channel@reddit
I love Airbus but I really hope this idea was mentioned after an employee hit their head against a wall because this is just not great. Private jets? Sure, single pilot ops, whatever, BUT AIRLINERS? I really hope that EASA and FAA will make Airbus rethink. I really don't want ZeroE to be a single pilot plane.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
Look so many things are automated we no longer need a flight engineer, The pilots jobs are the safety of the aircraft and passengers pilots have died in flight before and will again.
The humans are the last lines of defense, of course someone will say we can remotely control the aircraft but just imagine a hostile state actor seizing control of airplanes through the command link and crashing them or holding them hostage.
An aircraft is something that needs an air gap and independent controls.
Even slow trains have a two man crew for safety reasons and in many places they dont move faster than walking pace
Notawarcrimeth1time@reddit
I don't like the idea because it's cost cutting at the risk of safety. But look at my profile pic it's clearly possible if they put the time and money and safety testing into it. I imagine as long as 99 percent of the time the pilot isn't dead no problem, but they become incapacitated (heart attack/exc...) they hit the big red button or they hit the switch if there is an eminent threat to the cockpit and continuity of control(hijacking), or in the event of sudden death AI/ eye tracking/ flight attendant command/ a time out count down timer for response to ATC call and then and only then system onboard accepts a link to a on ground control station where a pilot has to make a remote landing which will rely heavily on an ILS system. It could be air gapped to only be a functional transfer possible if conditions onboard the aircraft or met. This would be such a an uncommon event for bad actors to be waiting for and they would only have a chance to attack the system when it happens and the link would be just like in the military highly secure and not an easy task. Further if there is a good flight attendant training and physical system it could be monitored and in the event of a unusual course or loss of communication from ground crew they could flip back control to a fixed circling and either the bad actors are defeated in the fight for link or your essentially just looking at someone with the resources and time to find other ways to fuck over a flight.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
ANY radio based remote command link can be hacked. There is only one unhackable encoding scheme and that’s a one time pad cipher.
there is a reason DoD secure traffic is sent over fiber optics and the conduit is filled with pressurized nitrogen to both protect the cable and detect any attempt to tamper with it.
Notawarcrimeth1time@reddit
Good thing there is more than radio to remotely control an aircraft. And again your talking about a situation in this scenario that is only a possibility if there is a total collapse of secrecy constant monitoring over the entire globe waiting for the one day a year (really less) where a pilot with first class medical becomes unable to continue to fly.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
Radio encompasses low kilohertz to terahertz and free space optics don’t work well at long range.
There is a reason some networks and control systems are air gapped in that you have to be physically present to attack them
Notawarcrimeth1time@reddit
Man I get it your smart I'll freely admit I expect smarter than me, but I can tell you I would on Drones that certain people don't like and there is plenty of moves and counter moves and stuff I'm not going to talk about on here that keeps reliable control. And to lose control we are talking multiple fuck ups.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
With a HERF system any drone can be knocked out of the sky,
taking over the link is harder but by no means impossible. the Iranian’s have managed it on several occasions to capture MQ-8 Reaper drones. And im sure russians and chinese have managed to do the same.
Most security is designed to delay access to the system so by time you have gained access the system or content it’s useless.
in the case of aircraft you have serial number and mode s transponder code. these are the airplanes unique identifiers. worse they are easily available
Real security is hard and it always relies on physical constraints
Notawarcrimeth1time@reddit
Again I work on them and there MQ-9's and systems have gotten better and there is again multiple ways to defeat attempts again stuff I won't talk about. Further your so concerned if there is an active attempt and comms with the ground or lost in this once in a year (really less) situation and have flight attendant re air gap the plane as SOP and then it's a talk down hopping on ILS. If state actors are just waiting to make a bad day worse and we find out that's a war and we're having a different discussion.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
I’m a pilot i own a plane and ILS while fantastic unless you are at a major airport its not uncommon for ILS to be in a failed or degraded state at which point you are flying a visual approach.
Notawarcrimeth1time@reddit
So a state affiliated government has infiltrated the secure system, us monitoring all planes for over a year for the day a guy has a heart attack and they instantly notice and try to hijack virtually a commercial airliner with 200+ people a war starter if there ever caught and they know that the FA can re air gap the plane meaning they just became an annoyance and then the FA who has been given an ILS class can't with the fuel onboard a commercial carrier find an airport with ILS or can, but ILS is inoperable that day? How unlikely is this scenario I feel like we have reached a proper level of redundancy. I'm a A&P with a GROL license and a student Pilot btw
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
My day job is analyzing failures in systems like this and you would be amazed at how many times the stars align for really bad coincidences and ive been doing it for longer than i care to admit to.
I’m not around when things go as planned, i’m there when they don’t and pick up the pieces and make sure it doesn’t happen again
I also hold a GROL with all the RADAR and GMDSS trimmings
Notawarcrimeth1time@reddit
Well than were just going to have to agree to disagree I'm sure the first system would leave much to be desired, but if there were the right checks in place and systems similar to what are on MQ-9 then it could work and be safe. I don't want to be the bad guy drone man from top gun, but the future is now old man. If you want to put on your shades and say "but not today" you can, but it's Hollywood at this point. Maybe public opinion will kill it like nuclear even with the proper safety and money savings, but it could be just as dangerous and just as equally safe as nuclear and modern 2 man + commercial flying.
No-Version-1924@reddit
Plenty of single-driver or fully automated trains outside of USA.
aftcg@reddit
False equivalency
UncookedMeatloaf@reddit
As others have pointed out though, if train operators aren't constantly resetting the alerter every 30 seconds the train will stop automatically, so it's a lot safer. Even then, I'm sure there have been a lot of rail accidents that could've been prevented by another person in the cab.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
In the US, subways and light passenger rail are single operator or automatic, but they travel fixed routes on protected and dedicated tracks usually with physical measures to prevent them from going out of bounds
pineconez@reddit
There's lots of single-driver high speed and heavy cargo rail elsewhere. The difference is that they have extremely effective safety systems, such as a deadman switch with a 30 second grace period and positive control via magnetic induction near signals, that can force emergency brake application in time.
Planes don't have an emergency brake, there are no rails in the sky, and they are orders of magnitude more complex. You could train a kid to operate a train reasonably safely (minus all the procedures and paperwork, and emphasis on "reasonably"), you can't do that with a real transport-category aircraft, especially not when shit goes wrong.
Completely automatic systems are still a long way off outside of very specialized scenarios like you mentioned, though.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
Precisely my point - Thanks for putting it so eloquently
Im_not_very_good@reddit
And they still derail them from time to time, when the operator falls asleep.
RTD says light rail operator “likely fell asleep” before W-Line train derailed at Golden station
datnt84@reddit
In Germany I have never seen a passenger train that has a two man crew. There are even trains that work completely automatic.
nobd22@reddit
And the trains are on rails.
drillbit56@reddit
And have deadman switches so if the engineer is not driving the train it automatically brakes.
kyrsjo@reddit
And have automatic unoverrideable braking systems if the driver passes a stop signal.
TheFerociousFerret@reddit
Hey siri, gear up please
IcestormsEd@reddit
As long as it has a 'Return Home' button, I guess...
AndOnTheDrums@reddit
That might be the day I stop flying. Being stuck at 35,000ft with an incapacitated pilot isn’t how I envision things ending for me.
Pylotpat@reddit
Garmin already developed a panic button where if the pilot became incapacitated, the passengers press it and the plane autolands. I imagine this would have something similar.
AndOnTheDrums@reddit
You’d be comfortable with that setup?? Not me.
KronesianLTD@reddit
I'm an Engineer at an avionics company. Yes, discussions and planning for single pilot operations has been discussed (and is planned for future designs of avionics). Do I think we will see it happen anytime soon? Absolutely not. There are so many factors at play here, and anything the FAA touches will never be a quick process.
flying_wrenches@reddit
The FAA can’t even get pilot mental health under control.
Single pilot commercial ops? Yeah right. See ya in 3024..
LoornenTings@reddit
Single pilot halves the risk of getting a suicidal one!
Raezzordaze@reddit
I'm sure being solely responsible for the operation of such a large plane will do wonders for a pilots mental health too, not to mention all that time by yourself. There's a reason us truck drivers are as nutty as we are. ..
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Germanwings, Silkair, Chinese eastern, Egypt air etc etc there’s plenty of examples and many I haven’t even listed, we don’t even know how many have been avoided because of the impracticalities in a multi crew environment
It will just take one such incident and this idea will be scrapped for a generation, it’s frankly absurd this is even being pushed at all- redundancy is the cornerstone of commercial aviation
TheLinuxMailman@reddit
Why wouldn't automation that will override a human pilot not conforming with standard flight operations be a thing, especially in a one-pilot aircraft? Or the ability for a desk pilot to take over the controls? Drones exist.
At a lesser level this ability already exists in Airbus.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Because any such automation would be able to be disabled in the cockpit
Brambleshire@reddit
Lookup the Wikipedia list of pilot hijackings and suicides.
otterbarks@reddit
The difference is that single pilot commercial ops has a lot of money backing it.
Pilot mental health, on the other hand... well, pilots are fungible in their eyes.
mm0t@reddit
Pilots aren't even allowed to be alone at the flight deck in many companies, how about single-pilot ops.
outworlder@reddit
Defective part you say? Let's just have one part that could be defective, with no redundancy.
NuttPunch@reddit
The FAA can’t even get certification oversight correct for Boeing.
Brambleshire@reddit
I guarantee the FAA would get mental health under control if it meant enormous cost savings for airlines.
link_dead@reddit
Dude, think of how easy it will be to figure out pilot mental health when you get rid of half the pilots!
Troj1030@reddit
We shall see when the next administration has plans to fast track things through the FAA. Someone who launches vehicles past 40,000 feet has said he doesnt like the pace of FAA approval process.
haltingpoint@reddit
Will love to see the face on Trump voting pilots when they realize Trump will put airline profits over pilot and passenger safety.
findquasar@reddit
Yeah, I don’t think they’ll be swayed by “safety” arguments, either, especially when it comes to lining the pockets of our corporate overlords.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Given how powerful American unions are on everything else it seems inconceivable, on even the smallest of things they are incredibly rigid
findquasar@reddit
Yeah, about that…
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Doubtful, it would be tied up in the courts first of all, secondly unions would still be powerful in terms of labour mobilisation. A few strikes and you’re done
findquasar@reddit
The NLRA and NLRB are what protects Americans’ ability to strike and to organize without retaliation, union or not.
I don’t share your optimism that overturning the mechanism that allows this would have little effect.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
I don’t share your fears that unions are going anywhere, unions were strong supporters of Trump too
findquasar@reddit
So were pro-Palestine protest voters, farmers, and immigrants with illegal family members.
Troj1030@reddit
Leopard, meet face...
kyrsjo@reddit
Next FAA motto: "Move fast and break things"
Troj1030@reddit
They just need to be sold on the idea. Thats one great way to do it. As for the public. If they geet to fly to Hawaii for half price, there will still be a line. I forsee this happening with cargo in the next few years.
polar_pilot@reddit
But it won’t be half price… eliminating the FO will save like, $5 a ticket
Troj1030@reddit
They will try to sell the idea that way. If they sell tickets cheap you think anyone is going to think about the missing FO?
polar_pilot@reddit
You mean like they’d take a loss for X months/ years in order to get people on board and then hike the price? Maybe… but the operating margin of most airlines is already so low, they wouldn’t be able to cut prices by 30$ a ticket for very long unless they had massive cash reserves.
Troj1030@reddit
It doesnt take long for people to forget what they were angry about.
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
even if 100% of the cost savings were passed onto the consumer it'd be something like 5-10%
which consumers would happily lap up. $250 vs $275, they buy the $250 ticket every time (then complain about small seats or any of another billion minor inconveniences that could be fixed by paying more money)
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Someone will try it with a couple Shorts or something similar, and very quickly abandon it after the first accident.
Carlito_2112@reddit
Doesn't FedEx currently do it with the Cessna Grand Caravan?
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Yes, in the way that lots of people do it in a Cessna 172. A Caravan is a single pilot airplane.
MJC136@reddit
Reality is there are plenty of single pilot passenger aircraft available and in use today. eg Pilatus. They still operate as dual pilot operations.
Continental-IO520@reddit
Depends on the country. Can't think of a single PC12 operator in Australia that operates multi crew.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Yep, my friend flies a PC12 here in Europe and despite it being a fully certified single pilot aircraft his company isn’t insured for it and the local CAA doesn’t allow it for the type, a A320/1 sized aircraft single pilot? Not in my lifetime (and I’m young)
barrisunn@reddit
In Australia, things are different. My friend from over there flies PC12 and King Airs on regar passenger flights single pilot. Funnily, the only flights he has to do as multi-crew are mining charters, as they do not tolerate the risk.
Fare paying passengers, on the other hand...
TravisJungroth@reddit
I don’t think this shows it’s impossible, but it does show there’s a big gap between certification and reality for single pilot operations right now. Heck, my first flying job was right seat on a Cessna 421.
Automation is an incredibly powerful force, but it’s also frequently overestimated. “I’ll believe it when I see it” is the smart move. The Navy made those stealth ships with reduced crew. Then, wait, turns out we need more crew and they had to retrofit a bunch of shit.
One problem is the costs are so high it only makes sense to make a big swing. If they cut the crew requirement on 10 crew ships, then 20, then 40 and so on, there wouldn’t have been such a big fuck up. But it’s hard to get billions in funding to cut 5 crew from a ship.
flying_wrenches@reddit
A Pilatus is considerably smaller than even a 717. Heck outside of a global 8000, most are.
nguyenm@reddit
You know my personal conspiracy theory on single pilot ops pushes? Someone higher up is thinking that the onboard air marshals are doing a little bit too little, aka nothing at all. Cushiest job there is, mind numbing too given the existing security theaters.
So I expect the same air marshals now to be trained on the absolute basics of using the automation in case of a pilot incapacitation.
aviator94@reddit
I’m an avionics safety engineer. In a sane world we’re at least a decade from single pilot cargo. We’re at least another 2 for commercial passenger ops. But this isn’t a sane world so we’ll see. Insurance companies may ultimately be our saving grace ironically
Zakluor@reddit
I'm not so sure anymore. We'll see where the next four years go for the FAA under the new administration. They have eyes for business before anything else and the FAA may be swayed by whoever is leading it.
Lanky_Beyond725@reddit
With how many times I have to intervene w our current very advanced jets in our fleet...I am not surprised. I think we're at least 15 to 20 yrs out from single pilot....and maybe never.
mduell@reddit
FAA has been struggling for decades to approve lead free fleet wide.
cmwoody@reddit
Air us are basically drones at this point really, completely fly by wire with satellite link. They could fly without a pilot if not for taxi and irregular flight changes. Not so much a stretch imho
rb-2008@reddit
I’m really not interested in flying on an aircraft with what currently is a lot of elderly pilots only to have half of the pilots and twice the Rick of a medical condition. I know ow they have regular physicals, but shit happens.
DiamondOrPoor78@reddit
Pls no
Technical_Lie_351@reddit
Ah, the joys of late stage capitalism. A system with an insatiable desire for growth at all costs. Early stage must have been fun. Boomers getting jobs straight out of school. Buying a house and car. Could afford to raise a family on one normal job. Then we moved through the cycle, inequality inevitably starts growing. People were promised trickle down economics, which obviously never happened (surprise surprise). Wages stagnated whilst asset values went up and up. People bought into, or at least accepted, the system because it’s how they paid the bills. Naturally, this wealth would never be enough for the all consuming machine, so they are now in the next phase, a CEO wet dream, where they can use all of the technological advancements created by the employees, to replace other employees entirely. No wages. No health benefits. No pensions. No regard whatsoever for the people who you’ve forced to take part in the system to survive. They’re disregarded. Tough luck kid-o.
This really does shine a light on the cancerous nature of this form of corporate, crony capitalism. Everyone out for themselves and no one else. What’s the end game here? Have humanoid robots replace most manual labour jobs? Factory workers? Construction? Warehouse workers? Automated cars and trucks. Automated trains. Automated planes. Not to mention the wet dream they have of AI eventually replacing most of the work done by lawyers, accountants. So what’s the plan, fat cats in suits? Where will your customers come from if you take away their jobs? How does money flow around the economy if people can’t earn said money in the first place? The notion floating around that new types of jobs will come up is pie in the sky drivel. Never have we had a disruptive technology like this before in our history. It’s the same nonsense we have seen floated around in the past, used to keep the masses calm whilst they continue to work toward their objective of replacing us.
I genuinely believe that everyone in an industry that faces this sort of thing needs to be very intense in their pushback. Your entire career could rest on it.
NotOPbdo@reddit
There won't be a need for the working class anymore. Population reduction and other dystopian ideas are already floating around publicly in their circles. We're nothing more than cattle to them.
Eat the bugs.
bahenbihen69@reddit
Shut up. My airline's CEO is getting hard already.
On a serious note I sometimes find myself thinking about this as well. The thing is there is no end goal. Capitalism is built on the concept of infinite growth, and in markets with fierce competition, it results in agressive cost-cutting which is a threat to industries with high safety standards. Aviation is probably the best example of this. Revenue can often be increased to as much as your competitors increase theirs, but costs can always be reduced.
willfibs@reddit
is there any reason to even support this? I've just been back and forth with two EASA guys eagerly supporting / defending it all basically saying the manufacturers have every bad situation probably figured out. just rubbed me the complete wrong way. This only seems to benefit the airline execs.
Mother-Arm-6456@reddit
I don’t think this entirely a good idea, people already complain that autopilot does a lot of work And people especially older ones don’t trust these systems, and credit to them I would trust it after the max incident
dablack123@reddit
Guess the EASA didn't learn shit from Germanwings Flight 9525. And based on all available evidence, MH370 as well.
I am a pilot. I am a single seat military pilot. Single seat works fine in some applications. I will never trust my life or my family's lives with single seat airliners. The EASA better get its head out of its ass if it is seriously considering this.
Dedpoolpicachew@reddit
It’s not EASA… it’s Airbus. It’s up to EASA to say “yea… uh, nope”.
bahenbihen69@reddit
EASA is actively funding this project. I hate lobbying
Exos9@reddit
If the EASA had learnt shit from Germanwings, we would have mental health support outside of a couple of non-profits which airlines can choose to pay for.
SupermanFanboy@reddit
Hell,the recent alaska air incident where a pilot suicide was narrowly stopped could have easily ended in disaster.
Interesting_Law_9138@reddit
Lol I wouldn't take myself or my family on a single-pilot operator airliner.
ToineMP@reddit
As an experienced FO, in a well paid airline I cost about 25cts/h per passenger. That's 2,5€ for a 10h flight.
So for 2,5€ you get pilots crosschecking and correcting each other, being able to take controlled rests, and also the captain learned from others during his career as an FO.
Or, for 2,5€ less, you could be purely flown by a computer when your pilot goes to the bathroom, have no one double check him, and also he has no way to gain experience from others during his career.
Also, I can't imagine how boring my job would be with no one to talk to during long haul flights.
Your choice.
Main_Violinist_3372@reddit
I guess europe didn’t learn from Germanwings or MH370…
Joe_Littles@reddit
Those flights had 2 pilots onboard.
Sasquatch-d@reddit
Remind us again how many pilots were in the flight deck when Germanwings ceashed…
FormulaJAZ@reddit
That's a simple fix. Just implement Airbus' philosophy of flight controls that don't allow the pilot to do anything that would endanger the flight. A suicidal pilot tries to fly the airplane into a mountain and the jet says, "Nope, I'm not gonna allow you to do that."
HungryDust@reddit
Why wouldn’t they already have that technology installed if that were feasible?
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Most people agree the landing phase of flight is the most difficult, yet automation has been landing airliners safely for 50 years in conditions that are too difficult for humans. So yeah, the technology has been around for a long, long time.
And the truth is, a huge percentage of flights are only hand-flown by the pilot for ~10 minutes. The rest of the time, the autopilot is flying the airplane.
People are the problem, not the technology.
Spark_Ignition_6@reddit
It's very obvious you're not a pilot and not knowledgeable enough for this discussion.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
In case you are not aware, the only reason MCAS was put on the 737 MAX was so a human pilot flying the MAX wouldn't be confused because that airplane handles differently near a stall than a classic 737. To have a common type certificate for human pilots, the new MAX needed to fly the same way as the classic, and that was why MCAS was put on the MAX.
If the human pilots in those two crashes followed the runaway trim procedure, which an automated system programed to follow the POH would do, nothing would have happened.
Spark_Ignition_6@reddit
"Yes, the automation was programmed poorly and caused the crash. But if the automation was programmed better, it wouldn't have crashed. Therefore automation is good."
Stunning argument you have there.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Those AOA sensor failures were non-events if the humans in the cockpit followed procedures. The weak link in those cockpits was the humans, not the automation.
Spark_Ignition_6@reddit
"The automation failed but the humans didn't catch jt, so more automation is good."
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Those humans realized somethign was very, very wrong, but everyone on those airplanes died because those pilots forgot their training.
The nice thing about automation is it doesn't forget.
The biggest design mistake of MCAS was relying on the pilots to deal with a failure instead of building in redundancies.
Sasquatch-d@reddit
Are you a pilot or an aerospace engineer? I’d love to hear your qualifications for you to speak this way of the aviation industry.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Old enough to be around when people were saying how dangerous it would be to replace flight engineers with computers.
Sasquatch-d@reddit
Germanwings was an Airbus, he input normal parameters that the aircraft would allow.
No-Version-1924@reddit
The same number that are in the flight decks of most European airliners, when one of the pilots need a toilet break.
Sasquatch-d@reddit
Yyyes and the moment one instance of that went wrong and killed 150 people it should have stopped…
No-Version-1924@reddit
It did, for a year, and then cooler heads prevailed, and now airlines are allowed to make their own policy on this - some still operate with 2 persons in the flight deck at all time, and some don't.
Sasquatch-d@reddit
Reversing policy implemented due to a mass casualty is beyond strange.
No-Version-1924@reddit
Do you think a flight attendant in the flight deck can really prevent a pilot suicide?
Sasquatch-d@reddit
Yes. Absolutely. It prevents the psychological effect of the pilot needing to be alone.
Germanwings 9525
LOM Mozambique 470
Silk Air 185
All of these crashes were by pilot suicide, and the main factor was they didn’t begin to crash the aircraft until they were alone in the flight deck. They all needed that human disconnect to do what they did.
No-Version-1924@reddit
In all those cases pilots waited, so they didn't have another pilot at the controls, who could interfere with their actions, something that a flight attendant can't do from the jumpseat.
It's not just EASA, the ECA (European Cockpit Association) also agrees that minimum occupancy rule is not an effective security tool.
Main_Violinist_3372@reddit
And Silk Air 185
So what happens when the only pilot onboard has a heart attack or needs to take a piss? What about to eat? Having only 1 pilot onboard is like only having one AoA sensor on the 737 MAX and we all know how the ladder turned out for the flying public.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
The automation will be designed to operate the jet from gate to gate. If the pilot dies in flight, the flight continues normally. No big deal (except for the dead pilot).
If the automation shits the bed, the human pilot takes over. No big deal.
What happens if both of the above happen simultaneously? The odds of that are in line with two human pilots becoming incapacitated, a risk we are currently comfortable with.
Main_Violinist_3372@reddit
And what if a pilot has a bad day at home and decides to crash the airplane intentionally? There would be no-one else to stop that from happening.
In aviation there is always a backup in case the other system fails. Having one pilot is just inherently unsafe.
Joe_Littles@reddit
Yeah no disagreement here. Just saying we need to be very effective in arguing against this stuff.
Main_Violinist_3372@reddit
Oh, I was just adding to your acknowledgement that single pilot operations is a bad idea. I think everyone else in this subreddit would also think the same.
VastThought6194@reddit
The list goes on and on. I mean, why do need an FA in the cockpit when one pilot takes a bathroom break?
EpicDude007@reddit
This should be reason enough.
HollandTheGod@reddit
I'll never get on a plane with only one pilot.....
futbolr88@reddit
An airplane for the professional who hates small talk.
CarGoBroom44@reddit
Why would anyone want this?
boldoldpilot@reddit
So it takes 4 flight attendants to serve coffee on a 320, but yeah we should definitely reduce the number of people actually flying the damn thing.
redmadog@reddit
Could someone explain how exactly long haul flight on A350 will go with a single pilot?
Atalkingstranger@reddit
Hell nah, so I'm basically jobless before I even get into the big airlines?
movtga@reddit
I'll be sure to check in with the captain when I board to make sure he knows I'm available.
fumo7887@reddit
The problem is when the captain needs you, it might be because he's unconscious.
TacohTuesday@reddit
So, just head up to the cabin door when the plane starts nosediving as a sign that the pilot could use a little help?
TheLinuxMailman@reddit
Even better, you'll be walking down and you'll get there faster.
fumo7887@reddit
You can go up to the door, just remember how well they’re secured now.
AlpacaCavalry@reddit
"AI! Open the cockpit door!"
PepperTheBirb@reddit
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
jtshinn@reddit
And my name is HAL.
Kizz3r@reddit
Yea its a memory item
Oregon-Pilot@reddit
They’d still never be needed. And it’s nothing to do with not having an ATP. In fact, the error that the single pilot makes which ends up getting everyone killed will be an error that would easily have been caught by someone who has just a PPL. It will be a misheard altitude while fatigued, and the overworked ATC controller won’t catch the erroneous read back.
N5tp4nts@reddit
So what you’re saying is I can get some PPL hours riding right seat?
N5tp4nts@reddit
They’ll have to get those beepers that firefighters have- they beep loud if you stop moving for a few seconds
livebeta@reddit
It's a different kind of flying, altogether
brainrotleftist@reddit
Good luck, we’re all counting on you
Carlito_2112@reddit
Surely you can't be serious.
Darkness572@reddit
I'm serious and don't call me Shirley
movtga@reddit
I'm having steak.
Twarrior913@reddit
Make sure to say hi to robo-FO while you're up there too.
fishsquitch@reddit
His name is Otto, sir
Smartnership@reddit
And he is a hero.
drillbit56@reddit
My son’s dream, he has his PPL and thousands of sim hours over twenty years. He has a few airline pilot friends who have watched him and tell him he could definitely land an airbus in a pinch. Need a new passenger cert ‘able to fly with flight automation’ first this contingency if they go with this.
DiscussionDeep3725@reddit
The captain who can't get mental healthcare flying 200 people solo might lock the door LOL
Spicy_pewpew_memes@reddit
Every other person around you at the gate has probably got you covered
TeHshadow99@reddit
I truly don't understand how this even remotely makes sense especially with everything else on a modern aircraft designed to have multiple layers of redundancy. If they're going to get rid of a pilot, might as well get rid of all those backup systems that never get used too. Fuck it.
ChitownMD@reddit
I’m not a professional pilot… but is this not the expected evolution of airlines? I would imagine that in, say, 50 years these planes will be sort of 0.5 pilot - mostly automated / AI with a safety pilot sitting in first class or something.
InternationalHour860@reddit
There would have to be remote piloting capability for someone to take over if the single pilot goes rogue. That tech exists already with military drones and will only get better as satellite tech increases.
F26N55@reddit
Soooo, how does this prevent another Germanwings situation? Because that’s where my mind instantly goes when it comes to single pilot operations.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Easy. The Airbus already prevents pilots from exceeding flight limits (bank, pitch, AOA, etc). You just extend that envelope protection to prevent pilots from flying into mountains.
49-10-1@reddit
I’m typed in the A320. What you are talking about can be easily circumvented by a type rated pilot in multiple ways.(probably by some enthusiasts who are really into MSFS high fidelity A320’s too)
Even if we remove those controls and circuit breakers and make them inaccessible that creates other issues.
As an example, let’s say that the plane is being GPS spoofed. Now you can’t land at an airport because the plane thinks it’s going to hit a mountain according to its EGPWS database unless you have a way to disable that system. If you can disable it, it’s probably not going to be very effective at preventing intentional CFIT.
There’s solutions for these problems but they aren’t easy without completely redesigning existing types.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
There is all kinds of GPS spoofing signal jamming currently happening in the areas surrounding Ukraine. Airliners in the area are not crashing into the ground because there are many different ways for an airliner to fly straight and level and to navigate to a destination. An aircraft designed to fly itself from gate to gate will have significantly more system redundancies than a legacy 737 with two pilots.
Bot_Marvin@reddit
Like what? There are a limited amount of ways for a modern aircraft to do enroute navigation.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Planes are navigating near Ukraine using time, heading, and airspeed, just like they did in the old days. If a human pilot can navigate by these calculations, I have no doubt a computer could do the same thing. (And the reality is, these human pilots are relying on their computers to do these navigation calculations for them.)
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Removing CBs from being accessed by the pilot would lead to most pilots and their unions simply refusing to ever set foot in the flight deck, forget about how often you have to perform a in-flight CB reset, the entire point of CBs is to isolate electrical circuits. If I can’t pull a CB in flight I have zero interest in going up in a highly electrical machine especially one with FBW…
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Not gonna say it for obvious reasons but there are PLENTY of ways to disable those protections and if there’s 1 pilot in the cockpit you have to have those abilities to disable/isolate certain systems
Those protections also existed in the German wings episode…
FormulaJAZ@reddit
German Wings also had two pilots...
As for the disabling systems problem, that's an easy fix. The only reason pilots can disable systems is because aircraft designers allowed them to be disabled by the pilots.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
And the pilot in Germanwings waited until he was alone in the cockpit….
Not many pilots are going to fly in highly complex and electronic machinery (that too with FBW) where they cannot isolate circuits or perform in-flight CB resets. This is a FAR more insidious and dangerous path to take
FormulaJAZ@reddit
People said the same thing about FBW. But it's been a long, long time since pilots had mechanical linkages to the control surfaces in the cockpit.
Automation will be the same way.
If a pilot needs the safety and security of mechanical circuit breakers, he can finish his career flying 50-year-old converted freighters in 3rd world countries.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
How is this the same as FBW? Being able to physically isolate a circuit is a basic safety measure, plenty of planes have been lost because of cascading failures caused by shorting electrical circuits
It’s even more alarming that you want to replace a pilot with a computer and then take away the ability to disable that computer….
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Yep, and on the latest jetliners, all circuit breakers are electronic. They don't need a pilot to turn around and mechanically pull or reset them.
The pilot's job is to follow the POH, and now, with everything in the cockpit fully electronic, you just program the computer to follow the POH. Bam, problem solved.
What happens when the computer fails? Ah, that's what triple redundancy is for. If that's good enough for 0-0 approaches over the last 50 years, I'm sure it can handle following the POH to put out an engine fire, a depressurization, or even both at the same time.
barcode-username@reddit
What would prevent a pilot from running it out of fuel?
RaidenMonster@reddit
All a pilot has to do is use both arms and head to fight the other guy while jamming his foot into the yoke.
Not to say I’ve thought about, but how would I stop someone from doing that to me. Dunno if I could.
320sim@reddit
That’s a big step up from just crashing a plane without a fight. In the case of Germanwings, the FO was conflicted and likely would not have followed through if he had to fight someone.
RaidenMonster@reddit
Probably right.
Good thing here in America we allow pilots to carry a pistol with them. Definitely doubt I could stop that.
Fight fire with fire I suppose.
PlaneShenaniganz@reddit
Until the other guy decides to put both feet on the yoke and push with all their might at 300’. Lot of good a pistol will do you then.
Kind of a macabre thought, but hey, we’re already discussing it so…
-burnr-@reddit
Just a gentle reminder, Germanwings was a 2 crew flight. (Raises shield to deflect monsoon of down votes)
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Right and the guy waited until he was momentarily alone in the cockpit….
F26N55@reddit
Right, but it’s the result of the captain being locked out of the cockpit. My point is what stops another suicidal pilot from doing this without that second crew member?
Swimming_Way_7372@reddit
If this was a concern they wouldn't have an FFDO program. That's a pilot with a gun. Nothing stopping them except we trust the people that are hired to do the job.
F26N55@reddit
I know of the FFDO program and I’ve also been concerned about it.
Swimming_Way_7372@reddit
There's so real pencil neck pilots put there. If someone wanted to overpower them it wouldn't be a challenge. The threat of a single pilot aircraft replicating German wings is only marginally more likely than a 2 pilot crew. Maniacs don't care.
320sim@reddit
I disagree. In the case of Germanwings, Lubitz was very conflicted and likely would not have followed through had he needed to fight someone. It’s a much smaller mental obstacle just descending the aircraft vs fighting someone
Swimming_Way_7372@reddit
So what I'm hearing is, we need to be more concerned with the wimpy pilots and not the tough ones.
-burnr-@reddit
What stops another suicidal pilot from doing this with that second crew member? Most countries do not require a FA to in the flight deck when 1 crew goes to the lav.
It’s a non-starter of an argument against SP ops.
flying_wrenches@reddit
It doesn’t.
Anphsn@reddit
A pilot can just overpower the captain or a FA easily anyways
lil_layne@reddit
If that was the case the off duty Alaska pilot who was high on shrooms that tried to kill the engines would have been successful with crashing the plane.
F26N55@reddit
I don’t agree. Second crew member can open the door and request help from the cabin crew to disable the rogue pilot.
Anphsn@reddit
True
GottaBeeJoking@reddit
I'm not saying I think it's a good idea. But it's an interesting thought experiment as to how you'd mitigate the threat of medical incapacitation of the only pilot. Possiblities I guess are:
- Stricter medicals for single pilots. But that can only take you so far, it's always a possibility.
- Aircraft must at all times in the cruise be configured such that it will fly to and land at its destination by autopilot. Wouldn't be possible currently because you'd have to at the very least have someone to hit descend, lower the altitude limit and arm approach. But not technologically infeasable.
- Some sort of dead man's handle which when released will squwak an emergency and fly to the nearest programmed autoland-capable emergency airport.
- Emergency remote control of the aircraft. By far the hardest technically.
- Don't lock the cabin door (trading off against hijack risk) and giver the purser enough training to be able to transmit a mayday on guard or via a company satphone and then get guided in to land.
None of them are great. I guess the arguement would be that you've already had a very unlikely event happen before you find yourself in this situation. But it would be a bold EASA decision to allow that.
Niracain@reddit
As someone who owns a business in the automation sector of the civil construction industry, I can confidently say this is the direction owners and operators want to go. Cut costs, eliminating fatigue and human factor, all I have to tell a client is “your machine can run nonstop 24/7 without taking 8 hrs rest” and it typically sells itself. As a pilot I will argue the flight deck can and will be automated as well…maybe not today, maybe not in 10 years, but it can, and will…
Decollates@reddit
"Eliminating human factor" = "I hate that I have to pay workers for their labor."
Niracain@reddit
It’s the shit reality we live in, I’ll take the downvotes as butthurt feelings.
theoriginalturk@reddit
Pilots with butt hurt feelings, prepare for a lot of downvotes
Bot_Marvin@reddit
Yes pilots in fact know the most about flying airplanes.
Why is that such a ridiculous statement?
theoriginalturk@reddit
Are you saying you fly your airplane without regard to the POH because you know more than the engineers that designed and built it?
Or do you follow the POH and checklists that were created by the manufacturer and your operational company?
Pilots are employees and their expected to stay in their lane operationally: you deviate from what the engineers have written without ops guidance and you’ll probably be unemployed very quickly
You’re also trying to say that you know more about an airliner type that hasn’t even been certificated yet and a concept of operations that hasn’t been fielded yet
a6c6@reddit
Big difference between automating a repetitive task and automating a human that makes decisions in a dynamic environment
Suspicious_Rough_829@reddit
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should, this is a horrible fucking idea
ExtremeSour@reddit
lol no it won’t
Choconilla@reddit
Human factors have caused accidents but I’d argue they’ve saved many more. I’m guessing a few a day even.
agentsmith87@reddit
Yeah I love knowing the fact that if my pilot has a heart attack that I too will die.
LuckyFlyer0_0@reddit
So I'm guessing they'll have some kind of feature where the plane can divert and autoland all on its own in case the single pilot is unable to fly?
jesuswantsme4asucker@reddit
Then what’s the point of a pilot at all?
Namazon44@reddit
Is this for real?!
Redditluvs2CensorMe@reddit
Wouldn’t the Germanwings crash kind of negate this?
jesuswantsme4asucker@reddit
Right? It’s because of that “incident” that there are never less than 2 people in the flight deck at any given time. 🤦
BigBlackHungGuy@reddit
Only the naive didn't see this coming. Automation is coming for almost everyone. If a company can save a buck and reduce the workforce, they're going to do it. The critical phase of flight will be the target. 2 for up and down and one for cruise.
RyanZ225_PC@reddit
This is real life with real people, not flight sim with fake pax 😂
Darkness-Calming@reddit
I am a newbie but that seems pretty unsafe
FedNlanders123@reddit
What a dumb idea.
HighVelocitySloth@reddit
300 hour CPL’s looking to get sic time on it instead of getting their CFI
Harinezumisan@reddit
Perhaps for the military variant
Intelligent-Web3677@reddit
If airlines are legal to do it, and it improves efficiency, they will. They do not care about safety in a way. Its all about profit margins and getting out on time. While im writing this, lemme explain how the drug tests at airlines work. They drug test the pilots AFTER the assigned trip. So that means someone can be on anything while flying and nobody would know until after the trip when the test is administered. They do this because if they test at the begining of a trip, and the pilot fails, guess what? Now they have to get another pilot out and take a delay or even cancel a flight. Another thing on safety— 13 hour duty days and then going into minimum rest multiple days in a row is completely and utterly unsafe of a company to do to their pilots, flight attendants, and to the passengers. Its like the company is saying “hey! Choose one- excersize, eating well, or 8 hours of sleep!” Okay im done with my rant
No-Version-1924@reddit
The reason why airline do drug tests after the trip is because it's a slam dunk. If they did it before, you could always say "well, I was going to call sick just before pushback", but if you did the trip, then you've got no excuse - you've flown the aircraft with a history of drug use.
Intelligent-Web3677@reddit
For sure. But if they really cared about safety theyd do it before. They truly only care about moneymoneymoney (mr. Krabs voice)
Che_43@reddit
With how much they pay the F/O the premiums must be really low
ap2patrick@reddit
Anything to not pay people. They will dump billions into researching new ways to not pay people.
Aufdie@reddit
I'm not flying anywhere with just one person in the cockpit for the same reason I wouldn't get in a strangers windowless van. Used to be there would be four people operating a plane that size, now they want to eliminate one of the last two. I would fly in a remote controlled airplane before I'd agree to the single pilot, that's nuts.
PilotBurner44@reddit
So if they go down to single pilot ops, what is stopping someone from pulling a German Wings? Automation? If so, what prevents that very same automation from failing and running it into a mountain because the pilot couldn't override it? Having a 2 human checksum is a safety feature automation won't be able to achieve in our lifetime.
Thick-Home6767@reddit
I fly single pilot on VATSIM, so WCGW? LOL….
CleverReversal@reddit
I could see them developing the 1 chair form factor now, so it's an "AI-ready platform" for the possible future where AI is considered decent enough to smooth that gap between 1, 1.5, and 2 pilots.
Aren't there some Embraer platforms that are 1 pilot anyway? I can see arguing that 1 person could handle other airframes, or 1 person+AI.
Puzzleheaded-Car3562@reddit
And when the SINGLE pilot becomes incapacitated?
MontgomeryEagle@reddit
Nope. Absolutely not.
ConorLyons18@reddit
Is this fake news? Cant find any sort of article or information on airbus developing a single pilot a321 online. If anyone has a link that would be appreciated
MartabakArabb@reddit
This is gonna be Airbus' version of Boeing's MAX fiasco
VladAkimov@reddit
so be it... they are shoting themselves in the foot.
Admin_Queef@reddit
This has to be BS.
FlyingCreeper89@reddit
I’m an FA and I know realistically it’s not going to happen but the day I walk into recurrent and they put me in a sim bay and say “so this is how you talk to atc” will also be the first time I walk out of recurrent early.
twarr1@reddit
Redundancy is the foundation of safe aviation. Or was.
Marknumskull@reddit
Sorry, that doesn't make money
VastThought6194@reddit
It's crazy how small the pilot salary acually add up in a grand scheme of an airline, yet they cannot find any alternatives to cost-saving without introducing serious risk. I mean, fix your goddamn website so people don't stand in lines and call all the time maybe?
Marknumskull@reddit
Yeah it's crazy the lengths they'll go to to save on paying salaries.
twarr1@reddit
Well, it does, in saving lawsuit payouts, but that’s just a cost of business
/s
Level-Drop-8165@reddit
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now. We are gonna be cooked in a decade or two. Single pilot ops sound awful. Not only unsafe, but very lonely. It’s just one of us up there. The stress will be ramped way up, and the customers won’t see a dime of the cost savings.
Exos9@reddit
The last line of defence is the passengers. I’ve seen people refusing to board 737’s after the MAX debacle. Now imagine telling those same people that there’s nobody flying the damn thing? I sure as shit wouldn’t board that plane and I’d advise everyone I know against it.
Exos9@reddit
A point that I’m not seeing raised here: in EASA, F/Os can be out of flight school at 250hrs and be hired by an airline. How the fuck will that work? Will EASA really allow fATPL guys to just fly an A320 in SPO like a god damn DA40?
DiscussionDeep3725@reddit
The last thing we want is a single pilot who can't get mental healthcare flying 200 people solo LOL
What a fucking joke this gov is
Spark_Ignition_6@reddit
Airbus...
classaceairspace@reddit
Airlines...
australiaisok@reddit
I have no doubt the only reason they got QF32 back on the ground was the fortuitous circumstances of having 4 pilots in the cockpit. (Captain, First Officer, Check Captain, Check Check Captain.)
SupermanFanboy@reddit
Boeing can't build a sturdy jet Airbus is trying to remake every single CRM fail in human history. Comac has zero engines Tupolev is Russian. Aviation sucks
SupermanFanboy@reddit
I can't wait for the day when a lobotomized a320 crashes. It took 592 to shut down valujet It took 522 to shut down helios. Every time lives are gambled with for money,only a loss ends the game.
SwissairMD11@reddit
I wont board any planes than unless I fly them. I see so many human fk ups.
Trashy_pig@reddit
Why does Airbus keep pushing this so much. What do they stand to gain? I would understand if airlines were the ones lobbying this but Airbus has been pushing this issue for a while.
Jameslaos@reddit
Cheaper flights, more flights, more planes, more profit?
enfly@reddit
The golden rule for redundancy: Two is one, one is none.
Aggravating_Loss_765@reddit
Insane.
CreakingDoor@reddit
Single pilot A350?
Pull the other one, we like controlled rest too much
Resident_Nebula_580@reddit
Pilots do die in flight, one did recently and one has to allow the Junior pilot to train with a senior pilot.
UKreps_101@reddit
I would rather fly on the max if this airbus actually made this happen 😭
CEOof777@reddit
It saves costs till the pilot gets bored and makes mistakes
oldm8ey@reddit
Hard to get your head around when everything in the airplane is double or triple redundant and then you remove redundancy for the pilots.
DanGarion@reddit
This is one of if not the worst idea I've ever heard of in my life.
HavingNotAttained@reddit
Next up: single-controller, unified departure, approach & ground at ATL, DFW and LAX
thewizbizman@reddit
Don’t worry man, you’ll get a revolutionary AI system to help manage your sector
psq322@reddit
It’s over boys
FlyingShadow1@reddit
Airbus really just wants to see the end of pilots. Must we automate everyone out of a job?
dropthebiscuit99@reddit
Alex, I'll take Bad Ideas for $800, please
TemporaryAmbassador1@reddit
Cost way more than $800 when they bend a wing while taxiing with half the eyes watching. And that’s just the tip
DirkChesney@reddit
I mean Delta already took off the tail of a CRJ with four sets of eyes on the cockpit….
Dalminster@reddit
I trust mechanical eyes more than I trust the Mk. I Eyeball.
The human eye sucks, and the brain behind the eye sucks even more. They tell lies to each other all the time.
DirkChesney@reddit
Those damn brains and eyes need to settle their differences and get along
Dalminster@reddit
A tale as old as time. It'll never happen; some pairs of eyes can't even agree to point in the same direction!
DirkChesney@reddit
Don’t even get me started on the brain versus the heart
Dalminster@reddit
Oldest of enemies ;)
Dalminster@reddit
Honest question, do you think they would just release the aircraft with all of the current workload/requirements, just with one seat or something?
I bet the engineers at Airbus thought about this sort of situation before you did.
otterbarks@reddit
I'm sure they thought about it... but that doesn't mean they solved it.
If you're an Airbus engineer and an executive tells you to make single pilot ops happen, "no, it's a bad idea" is a career limiting reply.
Never underestimate the power of business pressures to force smart people to advance stupid agendas in the interest of staying employed.
Downtown-Act-590@reddit
Nothing is ever fully solved. But for e.g. the "bend the wing while taxiing" scenario, Airbus apparently has pretty powerful computer vision-powered avoidance assistant (at least the talk is on this side of the ocean that it is pretty cool). That is why they called the demonstrator Dragonfly, as it literally has cameras to every side, much like eyes of some insect.
Airbus also released some videos, they show mostly some basic segmentation tasks, but even that is probably enough to not run into anything.
mkosmo@reddit
Industry has been working towards this for decades now. NASA has been doing the research for decades.
This isn't some knee-jerk thing.
Lamathrust7891@reddit
the amount of stupid shit i've implemented in IT because someone shouted "But SECURITY!" with no understanding how anything actually worked. currently cleaning it up now mgmt have found out.
TemporaryAmbassador1@reddit
I will never cease to be surprised about how little people who work behind desks comprehend about the reality of my work.
quietflyr@reddit
Just as those of us who sit behind desks designing and certifying these systems never cease to be surprised at how little pilots comprehend about the work of designing and certifying aircraft systems
mika4305@reddit
Well the did remove the inflight engineers as a lot of the workload was automated.
I don’t see how this would be different, only worry is if something happens to the pilot or if someone messes with the automation from the ground (terrorism).
DirkChesney@reddit
I mean they already took off the tail of CRJ with four sets of eyes watching on the cockpit…
jetpilot_throwaway@reddit
They can sell it to other countries that have crap aviation training and don’t care about potential loss of life. I don’t see this getting approved in the US or any developed nation in the next 50 years. Then, I don’t see passengers wanting to put themselves on these planes.
It will probably happen first on cargo but then a majority of other countries have to approve overflight and landing
downwiththemike@reddit
Man fuck these guys
Few-Orange-441@reddit
Fuck airbus
MultanHydra@reddit
I don’t even know how they will save money because no pilot will want to operate an airbus as a single pilot without a massive increase in pay! They will end up having to pay more then what they would normally pay a two man crew.
arbitrageME@reddit
What's the difference between single pilot vs no pilot? Seems like if there's a backup system as reliable as a pilot for emergencies (incapacitated pilot), then why can't the "backup system" fly the plane.
If they don't have a backup system, what happens if your class A medical pilot has a heart attack?
DatBeigeBoy@reddit
What could possibly go wrong!
otirkus@reddit
This will be revolutionary. Expect far cheaper airline tickets, far fewer flight cancellations, and an end to the yearslong pilot shortage.
phatRV@reddit
My copilot is AI.
HLSparta@reddit
I see you use Microsoft products.
OccupyMyBallSack@reddit
Is Microsoft’s Tay coming back?!
colehoots@reddit
Copilot if you will
chwastox@reddit
“I’m sorry Dave but I am afraid I can’t let you do this “.
Squawnk@reddit
"I'm sorry Dave but I am afraid I already depicted you as the soyjack and me as the Chad"
DaWendys4for4@reddit
“Jarvis, your airplane.” As I scramble out of my seat to go eject the wendys breakfast into the lav
Besbosberone@reddit
Jarvis, remove his balls
SPRITZ69420@reddit
Name checks out.
TacohTuesday@reddit
Sideways glance at the "Copilot" AI logo on my Windows browser.
phatRV@reddit
The captain’s main job is to reboot the FMS
Taptrick@reddit
I mean that’s kind of what they’re pushing for the future…
Transcend1763@reddit
>Project Morgan
<>
OnlyBrief@reddit
What if the solo pilot needs to poop
Educated_Clownshow@reddit
That’s one way to deal with a pilot shortage
NovaTerrus@reddit
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see 50% of planes being fully automated within 10 - 20 years.
IndependenceStock417@reddit
It's crazy that this is even being entertained by airlines and manufacturers. Do they not remember German Wings 9525, Malaysia 370, Fedex 705, among many others. Why are we backtracking in safety?
Dedpoolpicachew@reddit
um… profit… pure profit. Do you need any other excuse?
__Patrick_Basedman_@reddit
I would never trust this. I don’t care how safe they claim it can be. Why do planes have 2 engines? 4 engines? Redundancy in case another engine goes out. What happens if a pilot becomes unconscious or unable to perform their duties? There’s another pilot. I’d never fly one, and I’d never fly on one
SexyBoy37@reddit
Don't let Ryanair see this.
Environmental_Fix_18@reddit
I don't care how advanced Ai gets. Pilots need to refuse to fly without backup.
Let's be real. Lol.
TRex_N_Truex@reddit
Here’s the thing. I can fly the Airbus already on my own if it came down to it. There are zero controls on the FO side I can’t reach.
What I can’t do, program a runway change while I’m taxiing. One set of eyes looks up, the other looks down. I can’t call the ramp in LGA while answering a call from ground. I can’t talk to a flight attendant in cruise trying to solve a problem while center gives me a reroute. I can’t correct myself lining up with the wrong runway in LAX and I can’t monitor traffic and the mountain dead ahead while trying to avoid storms shooting an approach into Guatemala City. There’s so much shit going on where you just need two sets of eyes.
Ok-Cryptographer7080@reddit
This is a terrible idea. Do not do this
Worried-Ebb-1699@reddit
That’s why you put an exception to that rule in your contract
EstateAlternative416@reddit
No one is talking about how cyber security factors into this effort.
It’s a non starter based on the capabilities that are out there.
mobert_roses@reddit
Do not like this...
Onystep@reddit
What a shitshow
AridAirCaptain@reddit
Never gonna happen in the USA. Maybe in Cambodia it might be an issue
No-Version-1924@reddit
Never is a long time.
Remember where it was unfathomable to have jets without the flight engineer, and now you can fly a 747 or A380 with just two pilots?
NuttPunch@reddit
It actually wasn't unfathomable to remove the FE. It was being done really before jets even took to the stage as they did. The thing is that there hasn't really been any technological or design progress to make an FOs role unnecessary like that of an FE. I'm not sure there ever will be. Either fully autonomous or two pilots. Single pilot just doesn't offer much benefit besides maybe costs. If Airlines were so concerned with costs... I think they can make some other cost cutting DEIcisions first.
user1928473829@reddit
There was also a time where airliners had 4 or 3 engines. But we don’t have any airliners flying with just 1 engine. Maybe it’s a stupid argument but that’s my go to lol
whiskeypapa72@reddit
Going from 2 to 1 is a much bigger jump than going from 3 to 2, because it has much less to do with workload and far more to do with managing threats and errors that kill a few hundred people.
SirButcher@reddit
And this is one of the better outcomes.
Twarrior913@reddit
I could very well be wrong (and there probably isn't any real source material to prove either way), but I don't think the unfathomable-ness of removing a flight engineer/navigator/radio operator is was prompted by the ethical/moral aspect of removing the human element from the cockpit, but more of a technological limitation people couldn't foresee overcoming. The rapid technological growth in the last century has likely primed people to see that a fully automated flight is technically feasible, but I'm not sure if they are or ever will be to the emotional/ethical point where they trust a computer to fully control everything. Or maybe they will, who knows.
PlaneShenaniganz@reddit
Money really is the root of all evil. Have we fucking learned nothing as a species about cost-cutting and the erosion of safety measures? From the Titanic sinking to Stockton Rush’s submersible imploding one year ago, history is replete with examples of deadly hubris. We’re truly fucked as a species, and as always, greed and money will be the cause of it.
retrobob69@reddit
Let's just go back to single engine while we are at it.
cmmurf@reddit
Seems more likely there's two in the cockpit, but one is "standby/not crew" and paid accordingly. And that may also mean we've seen peak flight hours logged.
apoplectickitty@reddit
But, but, but...tray table! Airbus has tray tables!!!!
Smooth-Apartment-856@reddit
Piper already has turboprops with an”Oh, crap, the pilot is dead!” button that engages an emergency autoland feature that can safely land the plane on autopilot without any human intervention. I think a few other manufacturers offer the same system.
It stands to reason that the single pilot Airbus would have a similar feature. A flight attendant could punch the button in an emergency.
Sooner or later, technology will get to the point where the plane is flown by robots, and there will be no humans on the flight deck at all, and we’ll wonder how we ever survived with fallible humans at the controls.
SamSamTheDingDongMan@reddit
Your telling me modifying all these planes, paying an increase in insurance, adding risk, and paying probably another subscription fee for the software is weaving money over just having a second pilot? Highly doubtful
Veritech-1@reddit
The subscription model is going to be the nightmare hellscape of our future...
The year is 2094, airlines are fully converted to autonomous aircraft, they are now teetering on the verge of bankruptcy as exorbitant subscription fees have exceeded the cost of human pilots, but career pilot training has slowed to a near zero number over the last 30 years.
You sit there in your Apple VR haptic body suit in seat 334B of the A650. A headline flashes across your screen “Unable to maintain subscription fees, Airbus announces that airlines are now obsolete. Will begin to independently operate all Airbus aircraft by 2095.“ A tear trickles down your cheek. “My granddad was a pilot” you think, right as the iRobot Crewmba slams into your knee as it passes by. It accidentally scans your in-wrist Apple Wallet as it forces its way through the aisle.
A message flashes, over your entire VR viewing screen. “CHARGE: $234.50 for 250mL Coke Negative.” You’re suddenly overcome with a nauseous fear. The Crewmba extends a long metallic tentacle that aggressively shoves your head forward as it connects to the spinal port on your haptic suit. Your muscles spasm uncontrollably as Coca-Cola’s negative calorie soda is pumped directly into your bloodstream. Hot flashes and vivid hallucinations overcome your senses as your Health App’s exercise bar slowly fills to complete. “Congratulations on passing your calorie goal for today!” flashes briefly before your eyes. You didn’t make enough to pay your Whole Foods subscription this week. You’re severely malnourished. You are fading in and out of consciousness. Your last thought before oblivion is “It beats flying on Spirit.”
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Between salary, benefits, vacation, training, taxes, hiring, HR, mangement, etc, etc, each first officer costs the arline around $500k/yr. Figure 8,000 FOs at a major, and you are looking at $4 BILLION in labor savings per year. So yeah, the ROI on this move will be measured in months.
whiskeypapa72@reddit
Hard to quantify, but how much does a high-profile crash with several hundred fatalities cost?
FormulaJAZ@reddit
The FAA's rule of thumb is $1.5 million per passenger fatality. If some change will save 150 lives, but if it costs more than $225m to implement system-wide, the FAA won't require it.
TWA 800 was an example of the fix being more costly than the expected lives saved, so nothing was done to reduce the risk of fumes in gas tanks.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
The Max issue cost Boeing 10s of billions
whiskeypapa72@reddit
Let’s say that $1.5M figure is correct for litigation. What’s the cost in revenue lost from passengers that no longer want to fly on that airline? What about subsequent crashes from the same airline? Those kinds of events can destroy airlines entirely. How much more expensive does insurance get after the third or fourth crash resulting from this?
With the fume issue on TWA800, the FAA estimated about 9 crashes from such a mechanism over 50 years. I would expect the rate to be quite a bit higher than that for this—as it is for other single-pilot ops in the 135 world.
OracleofFl@reddit
Add to it the cost of more pilot rest needed and cancelled flights when the weather is sporty. You going to tell me you are going to do single pilot into Dallas during thunderstorm season with 50 airplanes getting vectored around CBs, in and out of holds, or in high winds or low ceilings, etc.? Is that pilot going to do 4 legs a day like that?
McDrummerSLR@reddit
The day these replace what we have today is the day I stop flying. I refuse to step foot on a jet without 2 pilots and the entire fucking world should be terrified by this.
Veritech-1@reddit
So 9 years ago Germanwings had a pilot commit suicide by airplane. As a result, new legislation and regulations were written to ensure that no single person is ever left alone in a cockpit. Now that there is an opportunity to enhance profit, we are considering single pilot operations. How do we now retroactively undo all of those regs, which were written in the name of safety?
VastThought6194@reddit
Germanwings? The list goes on and on and on. Look at China Eastern
caspian_sycamore@reddit
What's the extra cost of a second pilot per passenger? I'm willing to pay that premium on my ticket.
Is it $1000 for a two hours flight? $5 per seat on an A321? Are these people sane?
VastThought6194@reddit
It is purely hysterical that they go after pilots for cost-saving while their salaries combined makes up a tiny portion of the company spending. There are a million ways to minimize costs and this is the best they can come up with. Maybe fix your goddamn avionics and toilets so they don't break all the fucking time and needed to be fixed for thousands.
flyingforfun3@reddit
For those of us flying professional for any amount of time:
How many times have you corrected the person in the other seat? How many times have they corrected you?
I’ve had my share of “oh shit” moments. I’ve always treated my cockpit as a democracy. We both agree we are good to go or we hold short. We both agree we are good to land, or we go around.
What is going to be the safety feature to prevent accidents/incidents?
VastThought6194@reddit
MFs can't even drive safely without parents aside and now they want a single human-being carrying 300 passengers in the middle of Pacific Ocean.
ZB0Y99@reddit
Always “just 5 years away” it seems.
Valuable-Bass-2066@reddit
Is that back up going to be a remote dispatcher/pilot? If so that would be leaving it open for hackers to get control of the plane, cause if you can remotely control from the ground it’s possible for someone else to take control. Just think, NK or Iranian hackers crashing aircraft cause there was a security flaw that the manufacturer missed or even hacker groups holding the plane for ransom
Kilometers98@reddit
Reality is, a computer can calculate a 125,000 times faster than a single human neuron. With AI on the rise and machine learning so prevalent, you will absolutely see single pilot aircraft. More so with aviation where regulations are strict, computers thrive in defined operations like aviation.
A computer can monitor all instruments simultaneously, airspeed, altitude, engine health, flight control positions, hyd pressure etc. A human cannot. Unfortunately this is the result of high salaries and corporations pinching Pennie’s.
As much as I don’t like the idea, a well polished system will outperform any crew.
No fatigue, no feelings, no emotion… all of which you want when executing emergency procedures.
Public sentiment will be the only thing holding this off.
nyc_2004@reddit
The issue is that we are nowhere close to that point right now with tech. Big jet autopilots regularly fuck themselves up and try to kill the passengers and crew.
Eirikur_da_Czech@reddit
Until they can safely fly and land them remotely I won’t get on a jet with a single pilot at takeoff.
RedDirtDVD@reddit
Aviation safety is built upon redundancy. Also, security risk - single pilot would be able to override computer. So if it decides to dive, look out. Don’t see this happening for a while…
JustAcleanAccount@reddit
I mean this is a dumb statement tbh. A pilot can even do that rn if he wanted to.
Such-Entrepreneur663@reddit
Yes but there’s at least SOME kind of prevention in place i.e the other guy that should throat punch the one doing the diving. Cockpit door locked, one pilot up front, not much anybody can do.
nyc_2004@reddit
I think if the current level of cockpit technology had final authority, planes would be crashing every day
Such-Entrepreneur663@reddit
lol exactly.
RedDirtDVD@reddit
Yes, it can happen and has. But there is less opportunity with 2 pilots. Also suicide can be a relatively quick decision and if no opportunity is there, might not happen. It’s an increased risk, fact.
blueorangan@reddit
How many Uber drivers do you see committing suicide and killing their passengers?
FormulaJAZ@reddit
The pilot can only override the computer if the designers allow it. Go try to override the computer at an ATM and see how that works out for you.
RedDirtDVD@reddit
Well what’s the point or any pilot in the cockpit. If there’s no override, might as well let the computer fly it 100%
FormulaJAZ@reddit
That's where we are headed.
Optimal-Spread9712@reddit
Yes, of course the day will come when we pilots will be replaced by AI or something similar, however I can guarantee you, you will not live long enough to see it happen or not at least before y’all retire, AI has taken many jobs already, we are kinda lucky that pilots are essential to operate these complex flying machines, y’all know how to fly a plane and everything because that literally what we all do, but try to implement technologies to it and will take a very long time, just like GPS, which is relatively new in aircrafts
abualyo7@reddit
People won’t trust Single Pilot Airbus.
Smoopilot@reddit
The fact that insurance companies would increase premiums tells you everything you need to know about this stupid idea. If the automation for single pilot was safer than two pilots insurance companies would be reducing premiums.
No-Version-1924@reddit
You have to offset the increase in insurance and aircraft cost against the total cost of employing a pilot (and not just the salary).
There might come a time when an aircraft capable of (cruise) single pilot operation might have lower operating costs than traditional aircraft.
Smoopilot@reddit
That’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is that admitting insurance companies will increase premiums means they know the risk is greater than two pilot aircraft. Insurance companies increase premium when risk increases. To get through the FAA they will have to show that single pilot is just as safe as two pilots. The insurance companies are already telling you it isn’t.
blueorangan@reddit
Insurance companies don’t have magic 8 balls. They don’t know either, they’re just guessing.
nyc_2004@reddit
They likely look at the data from single pilot vs dual pilot operations on bizjets and turboprops.
doorbell2021@reddit
Then the first accident happens and premiums go through the roof, and you end up going back to 2-pilot ops. All the single pilot op development money is flushed.
gain_train1@reddit
He isn’t talking about the financials of this like you are, he’s pointing out that if insurance companies are charging more it’s because they’ve calculated a higher risk of payout. Meaning a higher risk of crashes.
No-Version-1924@reddit
Insurance companies have no data, which is why the premiums are likely to be higher. Hedging against the unknown.
TravisHatch@reddit
Except it isn’t entirely unknown, they will have magnitudes of data on single vs duo pilots with stuff like props and smaller private jets. Isn’t the best comparison but it isn’t exactly the ‘unknown’ like you are suggesting
Schpiegelhortz@reddit
Whether or not it's a good idea, there's not really any significant data available yet to determine whether it'll actually create a quantifiable increase in risk. It simply hasn't ever been tried. To an insurance company, it's risky because they have no idea either, so they're going to hedge their bets by increasing their premiums.
Calm-Frog84@reddit
It would be interesting to compare safety statistics, if enough data is available to be meaningful , business jet of the same type (like Embraer Phenom 300 for instance) operated single pilot and operated dual pilot.
nyc_2004@reddit
It is available enough for the insurance companies. There’s a reason that there are PC-12 operations that fly part 135 with two pilots
Lanky_Beyond725@reddit
Eh, as an airline pilot in one of the most advanced jets there is....I can tell you the automation as of right now is nowhere near ready for real life, full time use... .we save it from itself ALL the time.
Schpiegelhortz@reddit
I don't doubt it at all, and I don't think we're going to see single-pilot ops anytime soon either. But we do have to admit that there's also a human error factor in there too. All I'm saying is that the proof will be in the pudding, when it comes down to this stuff. If in 10 years it turns out that all these drones and UAVs are flying around autonomously and not crashing, we're probably going to end up seeing airliners with a single pilot.
Lanky_Beyond725@reddit
I don't know. A UAV has no passengers in it. It's a whole different ballgame for safety. Who cares if it crashes? What if the plane gets hacked?
The human error factor in airlines is there but it's pretty minor. We have 2 humans, PLUS a computer.
What happens when the plane can't pick up a local altimeter setting cuz the ATIS is down? I mean there's a lot of simple tasks a computer just sucks at. Most of them cannot land very well and they react very slowly. What if snow blocks a sensor and they can't see the runway? .etc etc.
Maybe in 10 yrs ....but I think that's ambitious. My guess is 15/20.for passenger operations. Maybe cargo planes in 10 yrs. Just look at cars,. they've been getting work done autonomous for 10/15 years and they're error rates are still too high.
Schpiegelhortz@reddit
And these are all points that I'm sure ALPA and others will be heavily arguing with the FAA and the flying public over the next few decades. It'll just depend on how long it takes the automation to become reliable enough to outweigh the absurdly high labor cost of pilots, relative to every other non-management employee.
Fit-Mammoth1359@reddit
Right. In my airline FOs aren’t even allowed to taxi onto stand in an A320/21 because of insurance companies, ditto land at certain airports. Good luck getting these guys to sign off on single pilot ops
It only takes one incident and the entire idea is out of the window….
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Many of the majors self-insure, so it is not a deal-breaker if the airlines believe in the technology.
otterbarks@reddit
For once, I'm actually rooting for the insurance companies here.
KehreAzerith@reddit
It's a stupid idea and it will not happen anytime soon. Single pilot airliners is a problem for people of 2100 to figure out. The technology simply isn't there yet and of course all the liabilities that come with having only one pilot instead of two.
paprartillery@reddit
...so based on the other commentary on this post, I'm not the only one mildly horrified at the implications of a single-pilot deck. That just seems completely irresponsible.
durrrr___@reddit
A lot of contracts in the US at mainline have that two pilots are required in the cockpit. Its in the Delta PWA and other mainline contracts
yeahgoestheusername@reddit
Another reason why having a strong competition/alternative (Boeing?) is important.
TheGeoninja@reddit
If human error is generally a contributing factor in most accidents, why would you increase the probability of human error? It just doesn’t make sense. CRM is better than SRM.
I think the only model that could get regulatory approval is the idea of single pilot phases during long haul flight where you could probably reduce a crew from four to three. Even that seems like a stretch.
NoteChoice7719@reddit
Is this fake news? The only source for the statements in that post are from ALPA, Airbus doesn’t mention anything about A321 as part of this Project Morgan or any proposal for flight deck toilets. Tbh it seems like quite fearful scaremongering from a speech from the ALPA President
mapoftasmania@reddit
I would rather pay an extra $20 on my tickets to have two pilots, since that’s about what it would save.
I am certain an airline with a “two pilot guarantee” will spring up because of this.
ABustedPosey@reddit
And then have a backup plan for your backup plan because that industry also has a plan to replace half+ its workforce with AI. I think aviation is probably more protected then most other industries because of the government and public opinion
barbiejet@reddit
lol project 2025 wants to remove regulations from the FAA
Malcolm_P90X@reddit
STOP THAT.
barbiejet@reddit
Now try it with the 737. I'll wait.
Final-Muscle-7196@reddit
The only way I could potentially see this working is with some sort of annunciator system like in locomotives where the engineer has to push a variety of buttons or “triggers” otherwise the train would apply emergency brakes and stop - but with a plane then activate an auto land feature.
But then how do you incorporate “crew rest” in flight. Washroom breaks etc. you can’t really pull over and park for 15 mins to take your Union mandated break…
Then also, you’ve got the lives of 90-300 people in the hands of … 1 pilot..
It could make some sense for freight, but then again, you’ve got a 300,000 lb bomb if that one pilot get incapacitated.
… I mean not to be doom and gloom but look what a plane did in New York to a sky scraper…
Standish_man89@reddit
The reality is this is coming whether people like it or not. The shareholders WILL get their profits
Gh3rkinman@reddit
Why still have a pilot at all? Slap an AI and a remote on there and start raking in those profits.
Gloomy-Employment-72@reddit
I’ve never liked this idea. Airplanes are built with redundancies so that in most cases no single failure can cause one to crash. Now, we’re going to introduce a single point of failure in the flight crew? I guess we can always hope there’s someone in the back who’s had a discovery flight or two.
rhapsodydude@reddit
People, no need to freak out over this. Nothing happens in five years given how slow the industry works. This is not tech industry. You’ll need major technological revolutions to make single pilot ops safe for all the reasons you’ve all mentioned. Even in the future with these airplanes being gradually introduced, it’ll be partially compensated for by the increased productivity of the airlines and ability to expand more easily to meet consumer demand, until it hits another limit such as airspace capacity. You’ll probably see writing on the wall in other air transportation sectors long before 121, 135 jobs are affected.
Mazer1415@reddit
New uniforms will not include pants. Airbus needs to stop listing to O’Leary. Pay toilets and standing room like a bus.
DixonCider5@reddit
Let’s say this happens and it’s mass implemented.
The pilot flying is probably going to need to be very experienced, so low time pilots will never get these jobs, but where will those low time pilots get the time built?
If the jobs all require huge levels of hours then soon there won’t be any pilots to meet those qualifications and then they will either need to drop the qualifications or bring it back to 2 pilot operations
Ganbario@reddit
Don’t worry. The copilot will be AI.
DefendTheStar88x@reddit
I'm surprised they're wasting time on this and not going full bore on planes all being flown from a central command center w no pilots at all. Military drones can operate wherever and be commanded from a base in Nevada by 20 yr Olds. 🤷🏾♂️
Grand-Amphibian-3887@reddit
That's not a single pilot aircraft when the only pilot onboard is dropping a steaming Oscar in the cockpit lav it is a 0 pilot aircraft.
applestem@reddit
Simple! The pilot seat is a toilet!
Grand-Amphibian-3887@reddit
Perfect!
Emotional_Sample_542@reddit
The safety pillar of aviation is redundancy. This is so stupid.
Killjoy911@reddit
Look, this automation is absolutely happening, and it’s happening in your lifetime, in your airline career. Unless you’re less than ten years from retirement.
Money rules administrative changes, and there was another point brought up.. insurance cost for single pilot operations will be just under what a pilot makes, to make it a no brainer. Everyone wins but the worker.. this is how it always goes.
Big companies win Insurance companies win
Workers lose
End of story.
theoriginalturk@reddit
Luddites.
There are a lot of career fields that are about to be full of luddites
Adabar@reddit
Name checks out
Killjoy911@reddit
I hate to be this way but I can’t sit here with my head in the sand, saying things like “not for my lifetime”, “this will never happen”.
There’s a lot of shit that has happened in my time on earth that I thought “would never happen”.
Quite frankly, the profit margins of airlines (which we already know isn’t that great) and pilot salaries are in direct conflict and a company will do anything it can to reduce that cost.
CompetitiveAbility67@reddit
This is not going to fly easily in the USA. ALPA will walk. I support them. There are a number of pilot incapacitation incidents per year for those on 6 mos / Class I medicals. What then? Boom!
mambapowa@reddit
Let's put as much redundancy in the plane except for the most random and complex system of the plane (the pilots)
stall022@reddit
Been saying this for years. Single pilot with an "FO" in a building who supervises multiple flights with the ability to take over as needed.
user1928473829@reddit
Honestly if they sell it to us as a pilot job that you can be home every night but still make the same pay, I’ll do it. Highly doubt they’ll pay the same though.
defaultusername333@reddit
Yeah. No thanks.
Big-Carpenter7921@reddit
How are we going to shit on flights now?
bottomfeeder52@reddit
if this ever comes anywhere close to fruition would the union be able to argue against it and support pilots due to increased job demands?
jack_harbor@reddit
No thanks, I’ll just drive.
iamflyipilot@reddit
“Operational cost savings could outweigh higher insurance premiums”
Translation:
Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice we’re willing to make.
PsychologicalAd438@reddit
The FAA can’t do anything fast. Ask anyone who has had to deal with a deferred medical, or look at how long it took them to upgrade ATC. How do pilots get experienced in Transport Category aircraft if there is only one?
Greedy_Camera_433@reddit (OP)
As someone else said in the comments, a certain somebody who likes launching rockets doesn’t like the speed of the FAA approval process. I’m willing to bet things will speed up over the next few years.
320sim@reddit
It’s hard to change an entire administration a lot in 4 years. Even if a billionaire dipshit wants it
taxcheat@reddit
Know who's not going to convince a certain somebody? A French company.
AutomaticVacation242@reddit
That's where they want to save money - by not hiring humans to make sure the flying machine works properly? No thanks, I'll be driving.
CapnBloodbeard@reddit
Given that everything on a plane has redundancy, this makes absolutely no sense to remove all redundancy here.
This will cause a plane to go down. Not if, but when
Pilots do have medical emergencies. It's rare, it happens.
Quick_Preparation975@reddit
Lets be honest here guys, this is happening one way or another. As much as we want to sit here and pretend like it's not.
Snarknado3@reddit
"operational cost savings could outweigh higher insurance premiums"
feels like a sentence at the start of a netflix documentary about the 2026 Lufthansa disaster where the pilot had a seizure during takeoff
Dellav8r@reddit
Jokes on them, Iv been doing it for years on MSFS on VATSIM
Accomplished-Ear-681@reddit
So no more cockpit doors then?
77_Gear@reddit
So I guess I’m screwed if want to become a pilot now?
Level-Drop-8165@reddit
Accountant, Dentist, Engineer…screwed if you want to become anything it seems
DirkChesney@reddit
Yeah I’d give up and pack it in. Sorry dude. The French robots came and took your job
I_ALWAYS_UPVOTE_CATS@reddit
We're letting the magenta line run the show.
tetri5@reddit
Is it a good idea to develop an aircraft this size capable of being flown single pilot? From a safety standpoint, absolutely. Working to get the technology to an advanced enough level to where it COULD be flown single pilot is a great idea. Better systems, more redundancy, easier and simpler to operate, etc.
Now, will they actually be flown single pilot, even if this releases and gets certified? Not in our lifetimes. Hell, there are still some companies that operate caravans with multi-crews. PC12 multi crew ops are extremely common, and I don't think there are very many examples of light jets being operated single pilot. I could go on. You also have the problem of training the next generation. Will it be worth trying to over-train some green guy to go right away to single pilot on a 320? Nah, much easier just to stick him in there as an FO till he's ready to go. Then by the time he upgrades, you're putting another green FO in with him. Putting in senior captains to single pilot will only be a temporary solution, until those guys retire and you realize there's nobody left to take over.
What I do think might happen is that these aircraft will be capable of being crewed by very low time crews, like a 1500hr captain and a 200hr FO, maybe not even require a type rating for the FO, like on smaller single-pilot aircraft currently. Easier to hire, don't need to pay as much, etc. So, job security will still be there, but current conditions and pay might not be sustainable at that point.
itsneversunnyinvan@reddit
this seems like a horrible idea.
Drew1231@reddit
Let me translate: insurance companies think these planes are more likely to crash.
Significant_Tax_@reddit
stupidest thing a group of Europeans has done since August 1939
scooterbaby46@reddit
At the end of the day airlines are a business. They need customers to keep buying. Safety and trust is a huge aspect of that. I, and many other customers, won’t get on a plane without 2 pilots for proficiency and redundancy. This also goes for the same argument as AI replacing pilots in the future. For the next 50+ years we will have 2 pilots
emperormanlet@reddit
You’re underestimating how price sensitive people are.
Single pilot airplanes will probably have a significant discount to capture the public’s trust before they’re fully adopted.
TwinCessna@reddit
lol. If you think the ticket price will drop, you don’t understand the business
emperormanlet@reddit
I’m not an expert in airplane sales, and I doubt you are.
All I’m saying is that this idea is being floated around because it’ll make them money. We can debate how this happens endlessly but it’s very plausible the general traveller won’t care that much about single pilot operations with time.
scooterbaby46@reddit
I agree that lower prices absolutely capture the consumers eye. Though, the moment some terrible accident happens and they find out the pilot made a mistake/couldn’t solve a problem that likely wouldn’t have happened with a second pilot then that is absolutely over. A lot of people are scared to fly and get super anxious about it. Let’s just say you lose 10%(prob more realistically) of your customers when some bad event happens. Then there negates any savings and prices will go right back up to cover loses.
Also, the that’s assuming airlines would truly even lower the prices in the first place with one pilot. They may advertise that as an incentive and tickets go down slightly initially, then they’d raise prices back again under our noses in time
schaf410@reddit
Maybe, but overall the price per ticket to cover a pilots pay is pretty darn low, and you can bet that the passengers won’t even see those savings. The ticket prices will likely remain the same and the executives and shareholders will make more.
blueorangan@reddit
people said the same about self driving cars. Now we have waymo. People adapt quickly
scooterbaby46@reddit
I’ve had this discussion with people before. The safety proposition and margins between a car and a plane is so vastly different. Also you can see how many issues self driving cars have at the moment. If you introduce one new thing outside their parameters they freeze up. Can’t afford that in a plane
blueorangan@reddit
And yet people are still riding in waymos everyday. They don’t care. Technology will only get better over time, not worse.
Sauniche@reddit
So they're just assuming the company can pocket the FOs pay? Fuck that noise if you're sticking me up there alone it's gonna cost you. There may be less pilots but you're gonna pay them more.
ContextWorking976@reddit
I'm not booking a single pilot flight.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
People said the same thing about the MAX...
Joehansson@reddit
They won’t tell you beforehand
TraxenT-TR@reddit
I mean they forced airlines to put a warning label that the flight is operated by a 737 MAX 8/9 surely they would put one for a single pilot?? Right???
ATACB@reddit
I say this as some one flys this hunk for a living. This is a bad idea with how often the computers mess up in these things.
Logical_Check2@reddit
And they won't have to pay the pilots more for doing more work because they'll be happy to just have a job.
soliminal@reddit
"operational cost savings could outweigh higher insurance premiums"
Air travel will be more dangerous but airline executives will make more money
unityofsaints@reddit
Isn't the combination of this and the sealed cockpit door in the U.S. system an unmitigated disaster?
grain_farmer@reddit
I always assumed this would just be a cargo thing for a long time initially.
Then the maths is simple: reduced costs by not having a first officer for all flights vs the increased risk of a plane crashing due to task saturation and all the associated costs of the death, aircraft loss, cargo loss, repetitional damage, ground victims etc…
I wonder if it will be treated like Cat IIIB landing where everything has to be working perfectly and full satellite coverage for the duration.
I’m curious how useful a remote person could be in an emergency. How would you set up for an alternate, while doing the radio, while aviating.
And then there’s a bunch of incidents involving Airbuses that had either serious computer/power failures (like the smartlynx and Qantas computer incidents or the EasyJet and British Airways electronics incidents)
applestem@reddit
I, for one, would like to see the FO in fetching attire.
FilmScoreMonger@reddit
I have to hope that passenger reaction to this will chop the idea immediately. There's no way I would get on a plane knowing that if the pilot suffered a medical emergency there was no backup plan. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Lord_Ulukai@reddit
Suicide by plane
Klutzy_You5142@reddit
Me finally getting my PPL at 34 😬
Hefty_Heavy@reddit
Finally, no-one to stop me from doing donuts in the parking lot.
ignatiusbreilly@reddit
Hearing this from Airbus my thought is, that sounds reasonable. Let's see how they pull it off.
If the same story came from Boeing I'd be thinking, oh hell no.
vfrflying@reddit
Nope don’t like that
BigBadPanda@reddit
Why did Embraer’s 175/195 program flop? SCOPE. Strong unions will stifle this tomfoolery. The can certify anything they want, but union pilots will tell them to fuck off.
No-Version-1924@reddit
Over 1000 orders, hardly a flop. E195-E2 has around 300 orders as well.
cawvak@reddit
No
TypicalRecon@reddit
Hey alexa page 4 of the QRF please
pilotshashi@reddit
⬇️
AlpineAviator@reddit
God I really hope this never happens
disfannj@reddit
not gonna happen for years.
-burnr-@reddit
Not with pax, but I could see cargo happening sooner rather than later. FedEx has had SP ATR-42s in trials for a while (or they did…have not kept up on that program)
Mediocre-Tap-4825@reddit
Look at the upside- you get your own personal restroom. The magazines!
flyingron@reddit
You shouldn't rely on psychopaths for news. This story is hardly new. The European pilots unions have been on a concentrated bent against it for a while with ads showing a toilet in the cockpit and asking how a single pilot will handle emergencies.
kennedye2112@reddit
If this goes through (which I doubt), then I damn well better not be required to have a VO when I go droning around below 400 feet anymore.
SodamessNCO@reddit
I always compare stuff like this to trains. My parents remember when BART was constructed in the 1960s, it was supposed to be fully automated and driverless! Bart trains, and all similar trains are more than capable of fully autonomous operations but even today, there's always a conductor(?) operating the controls. Not just monitoring systems, the driver literally has direct control of the throttle and breaks while observing posted track speed limits and signage outside. This is how most modern commuter/passenger trains work. Only the most simple airport terminal trains are fully automated. Just because it CAN be done with current technology, doesn't mean is SHOULD or necessarily WILL.
hundycougar@reddit
Who will the Boomer pilots berate now?!?
whiskeypapa72@reddit
“Operational costs could outweigh higher insurance premiums” is a crazy statement and mindset given the magnitude of events that would create the higher insurance premiums. Entirely antithetical to SMS.
mika4305@reddit
Oh wow… kinda glad I didn’t go this path then… it’s hard enough to get in as it is. With this? Much harder.
GMTMaster_II@reddit
No thanks - jet charter business is about to have another boom.
ilias80@reddit
It was just a matter of time really. Eventually it will be an autonomous aircraft and/or with a remote operator.
Main_Violinist_3372@reddit
Looking forward to flying with no boomer captain to argue with beside me /s
febrileairplane@reddit
Alexa, fly my airplane while I piss. Please don't crash.
Alright, febrileairplane, crashing now. Is there anything else I can do?
554TangoAlpha@reddit
Imagine taking a radio call from the shitter lol. But serious fuck project Morgan, all my homies hate Morgan.
TacohTuesday@reddit
Armchair flight simmers are chomping at the bit to be the emergency backup pilot given this news.
ReadyplayerParzival1@reddit
I mean I get maybe the 320 being single pilot. The 350 on the other hand no way.
No-Version-1924@reddit
It's easier the other way around.
350 is a much newer design, and it spends most of the time in cruise, which is what the "single pilot" is all about - reducing the need for the cruise relief pilot.
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
To those considering to get into the industry now, really consider if this is a risk you want to take and make sure you have a back up plan.
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.