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

141–150 of 267 posts

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

#141

Post by BiteCode_dev »

rysertio wrote: post #68
WalterBright wrote: post #31

All you gotta do is watch a few episodes of "Aviation Disasters" to conclude that the pilot needs a backup - the copilot. After all, when the pilot goes to the potty, who is flying the airplane? The computer? LOL. When something unanticipated goes wrong, the computers are COMPLETELY USELESS because it wasn't programmed to deal with unanticipated problems. Me, I'll pay a bit extra for my flight to have 2 pilots. Pilot…

But would that pilot have to be in the plane to fly it? We have been using remote controlled killer drones for years now.

"Skin in the game" from Taleb argues that yes, it's because the pilot is in plane that the plane is safer. Because the pilot will pay the same price as the passengers for a mistake, it will increase the likelihood of success.

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

#142

Post by MomoXenosaga »

gnopgnip wrote: post #108
bmitc wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, I don't understand the push of humans to want to replace everything we do with machines. What's the point? What's the end goal? We just sit in a vat of embalming fluid consuming media with a feeding tube while machines whir about? Why can't enough ever be enough for humanity?

About 1/3rd of the cost of an airline ticket is labor. Many people in the travel industry would rather be at home with their families, traveling themselves, pursuing other hobbies instead of working

The number one reason why people work is because they need the money. Even if you enjoy your job there are still days you'd rather stay in bed.

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

#143

Post by bombcar »

WalterBright wrote: post #74
rysertio wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But would that pilot have to be in the plane to fly it? We have been using remote controlled killer drones for years now.

I am not a pilot. But given my experience driving cars in video games, and driving them in 3D land, there's no comparison. A remote operator cannot pick up a fire extinguisher, go into the cabin and look out the window, smell the smoke, feel the weird vibration, relieve the pilot who is pulling on the controls with all his might, fend off intruders with the fire axe, etc. Remote control is always going to have a lag…

We’re getting really close to the old joke - planes will have a computer, a pilot, and a dog. The computer is there to fly the plane, the pilot is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.

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

#144

Post by bombcar »

zarzavat wrote: post #115
rysertio wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But would that pilot have to be in the plane to fly it? We have been using remote controlled killer drones for years now.

If the pilot goes all Germanwings and decides to fly the plane into a mountain, what is the pilot on the ground going to do about it? If your answer is “the pilot on the ground takes control”, what happens when that system gets hacked?

You could theorize a simple remote override that is simply “deviate to nearest appropriate airport and land” but that requires substantial support AND doesn’t handle all sorts of abnormal situations beyond “pilot died”.

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

#145

Post by krustyburger »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #109
bmitc wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, I don't understand the push of humans to want to replace everything we do with machines. What's the point? What's the end goal? We just sit in a vat of embalming fluid consuming media with a feeding tube while machines whir about? Why can't enough ever be enough for humanity?

Becase if we didn't, there'd be 95% of us still producing food manually and the other 5% would be blacksmiths and other supporting roles for food production. Now, only a tiny percentage of people produce food, and the rest can be community managers on twitter.

Let us not forget the anarcho-syndicalist communes. They would take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week.

But all the decisions of that officer had to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major matters.

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

#146

Post by bombcar »

blueslurpee wrote: post #134
bobsomers wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can’t even fly at night or in weather without an instrument rating Minor nit: You can fly at night with a Private Pilot's certificate, but it must be under VFR like all your daytime flying.

This differs in Europe, where some NAA's view night flying as equivalent to IFR.

Europe is weird about private license; so much so that a vast majority of people in Europe instead travel to the US for a few months to learn flying.

Night flying over LA is great; night flight over the desert or the Midwest away from cities can be effectively IFR; VFR private licenses require some IFR time but I highly recommend spending some time on instruments if you’re going to VFR at night.

And VFR over the top at night I just don’t recommend unless you have an IFR rating.

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

#147

Post by giantg2 »

It wasn't clear in the article. Does this mean there's only one pilot on the plane, or that only one pilot has to be at the controls but with a second pilot on board?

It would have been nice if the article covered some numbers on different things. Such as how many times a pilot has had a medical emergency or some other issue that renders one of the two pilots incapacitated. Or what kinds of situations benefit from two pilots, or might even require two pilots, such as bad weather/winds, or decisions/actions in emergency situations, including technology failures.

I also wonder about what happens if the single pilot became incapacitated with all the security these days. Would there be the ability for the crew or someone else to gain entry to the cockpit to fly the plane? Or would they essentially replace a pilot first officer with a non-pilot role?

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

#148

Post by bombcar »

willnonya wrote: post #43
fasthands9 wrote: post #6

> Prior to 2010, pilots needed just 250 hours to start flying for a commercial airline. The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 raised this requirement from 250 hours to 1,500 hours. >co-pilots in foreign countries are required to have just 240 hours, with some of those hours occurring in a simulator. This is from a different article but feel like this is lower hanging fruit than…

This is the source of the current shortage. It is much more time consuming and expensive just to become a commercial pilot now. This has completely disrupted the progression and training in the pipeline and will not be alleviated by halving the pilot requirements. When this flight hour change runs head first into a large number of pilots retiring the entire industry is going to be in a state of emergency.

We solve that by going to war; the military is perfectly fine sticking a 19 year old with 20 hours of stick time behind the controls of a supply plane.

And when the war is over we have a glut of pilots.

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

#149

Post by bombcar »

V99 wrote: post #72
rsj_hn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You believe pilot salaries are 40-50% of airline ticket prices? A pilot makes ~130K per year and flies, say, 2 trips a day, so ~500 trips a year. So on a plane with 200 people, they are each paying about $1.30 per pilot. Two pilots, round it up to $5 per trip. That's how much…

Experienced captains at the major ("legacy") airlines make considerably more than you think. Up to ~$350 per hour (plus benefits, retirement, etc.) On the other hand, salaries are VERY back-loaded towards the end of their career. A first-year first officer ("copilot") is maybe $90/hr. And if you switch employers, you start all over again at the bottom of the ladder. A strange world compared to hopping around tech com…

You can’t just jump into a 737 from your CFI hours on a 172; you still do need a type rating.

The required hours are a problem; the solution is not to go to one pilot but to go back to three, so the third pilot can build actual flight hours in type without issue.

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

#150

Post by projektfu »

bmitc wrote: post #97
teeray wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m going to pull another quote from that section that I think also supports the idea. There are specific cases cited in the book… I just don’t think copying an entire section of a book will be as helpful at getting the ideas out here: > “Dr. Wiener[0] worried, and I agree, that the paradox of automation is that it often lowers a pilot’s workload when that load is already low. And it sometimes increases the workload…

In general, I don't understand the push of humans to want to replace everything we do with machines. What's the point? What's the end goal? We just sit in a vat of embalming fluid consuming media with a feeding tube while machines whir about? Why can't enough ever be enough for humanity?

Reminds me of the story of the fisherman and businessman.

https://paulocoelhoblog.com/2015/09/04/the-fisherman-and-the...

Post reply on HN