Once more corporate greed and bad capitalism show their true faces, reduce cost by having only 1 pilot. And there are people who find this stupid proposal acceptable and have delusions that air ticket prices will fall if there is only 1 pilot :-)
No wonder our society/civilization is going downhill :-(
Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
151–160 of 267 posts
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t phrase this well, good call out. Now that I’ve thought about it what I’m actually trying to ask is… What would it take to drop flight prices 50%? Automated flights, a change in fuel technology, 0 marketing spend, reduced maintenance? More specifically, what is the bare bones cost to transport a human from point a to b, safely, in the same or less time it takes a flight.
> What would it take to drop flight prices 50%? 1. Free fuel. Fuel is the biggest cost of flights. For domestic flights, about half the ticket cost. 2. No taxes/government mandated fees (including fuel taxes). These are the second biggest cost, and for international flights, can easily be half the ticket price, but for domestic flights, about 20% of the ticket price. 3. Free planes. Planes are the third biggest cost.…
Reducing convenience - replace as many possible flights between city pairs with as few giant jumbos as possible. Instead of many many flights between LAX and CHI just have a few A380s in cattleclass.
Saves a bit on fuel and a bunch on other costs. But people would be unhappy about it.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
If autopilot can control an airplane, then couldn't someone also pilot the plane remotely (as if it were a drone)? That would provide some pilot redundancy. I imagine airlines could also save money on staffing if the copilot didn't have to be physically present.
1) the autopilot is actually quite dumb ("keep altitude", "fly on course X", "maintain set speed", "change altitude at rate X / to level Y"), doesn't handle exceptions (in fact, autopilots are designed to disengage in case of exception), and is generally totally blind to environment other than heading, speed, altitude and optionally position (but not, for example, detailed environment on the ground) 2) The latency is…
Modern autopilots can taxi, takeoff, and with a supporting airport, even autoland.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just look at the MCAS disaster. The only override that wasn't under its control required someone present in the cockpit to basically physically lift the plane using a normally automated control. This illustrates two things: First the design of the software used in commercial airplanes is bat shit insane and second, the fallbacks require that a trained person is physically present on the plane. > We have been using re…
>First the design of the software used in commercial airplanes is bat shit insane At least in that case. But it isn't normal that you blindly trust a sensor, not even Level D (failure is unimportant and easy to deal with) Software would/should do that. It actually takes a significant effort to put Software into a plane, which only increases with safety requirements. The chain of failure which needed to happen in this…
> which only increases with safety requirements
Yes, safety requirements which include the double buffer of two trained and experienced human pilots being in physical command of the plane double checking themselves and the software/hardware
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#155Earlier 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?
As a controls engineer building factory automation, it's about letting humans do human things and robots do robotic things.
You don't want to have a human sticking their fingers in a grinder, or handling red-hot castings, or trying to install a washer on a dial table every 2.5 seconds for 8 hours straight, or attending the movement of a sewing machine within 1/8" for literal miles of seams sewn each day... those are all mind-numbing or dangerous things I've automated. But the machines can't efficiently understand when they're wearing out, they fault in a myriad of ways and need troubleshooting, they need someone to monitor the quality of incoming and outgoing product, keep them fed with parts, and to do other common-sense human tasks.
There are certainly things that people have tried to automate that didn't make sense. But there are a lot of things that haven't yet been automated which should be.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#156If an airline offered 2 pilots when every other airline only had 1. Then I would fly them every time.
I know the chance of them having a heart attack or stroke, suicide is statistically unlikely. But putting your life in the hands of a single person you’ve never met vs two is a no brainer to me.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#157Earlier 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?
MBA types would remove the wings if they could. It’s all about greed and money.
I swear they must be running some cult machinery inside MBA schools. Practically every MBA I’ve met parrots the same language and has the same beliefs and approaches.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#158Earlier 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.
"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.
That’s a great point I hadn’t thought of
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#159> American Airlines Capt. Michael Johnston died of a heart-attack mid-flight from Phoenix to Boston early Monday morning, his wife Betty Jean Johnston told NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel/american-airlines-ca... So, if he was the only pilot in cockpit, everyone on the flight would have died too?
A risk the airlines are willing to take ..
The stock price demands human sacrifice!
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#160All 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.
Killer drones main job is killing people, an airlines main job is keeping them alive...
I don't think the comparison to a drone that doesn't need a pilot on board applies to an airline. If there are humans on board, one or ideally more of them should be capable of controlling the aircraft.