Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 267 posts

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#51

Post by maximilianroos »

John23832 wrote: post #50
maximilianroos wrote: post #49

> But many recent examples tend to confirm the unions' argument, including a 2015 crash in Europe. A co-pilot of a Germanwings flight locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane, killing himself and 149 other people, giving credence to the ongoing argument that in an airborne crisis you need two pilots working in concert to save the aircraft How does that support the argument that two pilot…

Because now (at least in America), there are always two bodies in the cockpit at all times. When one of the pilots goes to the bathroom, the head stewardess goes into the cockpit. Someone can always attempt to unlock.

Ah, interesting, thanks

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#53

Post by indus »

teeray wrote: post #16

Since we’re going to be talking about automation quite a bit here, I found Sully’s take on automation in the cockpit to be quite relevant: > “I’VE COME across a number of people over the years who think that modern airplanes, with all their technology and automation, can almost fly themselves. That’s simply not true. Automation can lower the workload in some cases. But in other situations, using automation when it is…

Automation in aviation can be broken down into:

* Avionics

* Weather

* Communication

* Controls

* Positioning

What Sully refers to automation is controls. Beyond auto-pilot capabilities, there has been advancement but little has gone to mainstream/commercial.

Automation in communication and weather reporting has gone up leaps. Look at ADS-B or real-time satellite based in/out reporting.

Just like the advancement in AI we are seeing with other areas of computing, matter of time before we leapfrog in Avionics and Controls.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#54

Post by maximilianroos »

For those saying how obvious it is for us to mandate two pilots:

Should buses have two drivers? A large bus carries about as many people as a small plane. And per distance, road travel is > 100 times more dangerous than air travel.

References:

- https://journalistsresource.org/economics/comparing-fatality...

- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/24/avoid-...

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#55

Post by gkiely »

I take a contrarian opinion on this, the price of a flight in the US outside of major hubs is egregious. Especially during peak times or holidays.

What is the long term plan here? Will there still be duo pilots in 2040? 2060?

Surely long term it will be automated with remote supervision/override and a cabin crew who have basic training to emergency land.

Do the testing on mail delivery, get it good enough, introduce it into domestic with pilots still present, slowly phase out pilots to be remote.

I would fly domestic automated flights if the automation was proven as safe, the above conditions were met, and the price was 40-50% cheaper.

I don’t see why a company hasn’t gone all in on this yet, but would love to hear why it’s a dumb idea/not feasible.

* Edit: based off this link it seems that staffing is only 12% of costs which would not address my criteria of significantly cheaper flights. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33770/how-much-...

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#56

Post by fzeroracer »

No, just no, and I'm increasingly tired of companies eliminating any form of slack or redundancy to save pennies on the dollar. This is in effect taking a 'safety loan' in that you earn a little bit more now, but lose a lot more in the future when you're the subject of a massive lawsuit due to poor safety protocols.

Even if planes become fully automated, a pilot and a copilot should always be present on the plane. One to serve as a check against the automated system, and the other to serve as a check against the pilot.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#57

Post by ipython »

maximilianroos wrote: post #54

For those saying how obvious it is for us to mandate two pilots: Should buses have two drivers? A large bus carries about as many people as a small plane. And per distance, road travel is > 100 times more dangerous than air travel. References: - https://journalistsresource.org/economics/comparing-fatality... - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/24/avoid-...

The failure modes are vastly different and the ability for a passenger to pilot a bus to the side of the road in an emergency is much more probable than the aircraft. This is not a reasonable comparison at all.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#58

Post by tinus_hn »

maximilianroos wrote: post #54

For those saying how obvious it is for us to mandate two pilots: Should buses have two drivers? A large bus carries about as many people as a small plane. And per distance, road travel is > 100 times more dangerous than air travel. References: - https://journalistsresource.org/economics/comparing-fatality... - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/24/avoid-...

Can anyone stop a bus? Does it stop automatically if the driver has a heart attack? Will all the passengers die?

Can anyone land a plane? Does it land automatically if the pilot has a heart attack? Will all the passengers die?

The outcomes are quite different.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#59

Post by meibo »

gkiely wrote: post #55

I take a contrarian opinion on this, the price of a flight in the US outside of major hubs is egregious. Especially during peak times or holidays. What is the long term plan here? Will there still be duo pilots in 2040? 2060? Surely long term it will be automated with remote supervision/override and a cabin crew who have basic training to emergency land. Do the testing on mail delivery, get it good enough, introduce…

The 737 MAX crashes were in 2019. These companies don't have our safety as a top priority anymore and things being "proven safe" obviously is not something that can be held high. I don't see how I could trust an automated flight, if even the biggest aircraft producer in the world cannot make automated systems that won't kill 200 people in one go, in a matter of minutes, in 2019, without the pilot's knowledge.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#60

Post by oceanplexian »

Retric wrote: post #47
defrost wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of the discussion this isn't an entirely ridiculous notion. Here in W.Australia Rio Tinto manage and remote co-pilot otherwise fully automated 100 tonne Haulpak dump trucks (that can easily run over and crush a car or pickup truck) from 1,000 km away. I'm fully in favour of a human pilot and a co-pilot (an advanced trainee even) for short haul flights that don't require shift work for the pilot (eg: long…

Yea, I think remote backup drivers for self driving cars is fairly reasonable, but remote pilots just brings to mind thousands of passenger filled bombs.

At least to start it’s pretty simple. Have a single physical pilot with the ability for a remote pilot to take over in the event of incapacitation, bathroom breaks, etc. The real pilot can always override the remote piloting system through some kind of physical disconnect.
Post reply on HN