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.
Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
161–170 of 267 posts
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#162Since 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…
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…
That's kind of interesting. It sounds similar to how every once in a while, pre-smartwatches, I would walk a mile or so on my way somewhere before noticing that Google Maps had me pointed in the opposite direction.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#163Since 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…
From a technical point of view, flying and landing planes automatically is not that hard. It's a lot easier than self driving cars. And probably also a lot easier than landing a rocket, which is of course something that is not done manually by spacex. Why would they? It's way too complicated for humans and most of the important things require split second decision making far beyond what humans can even do.
The hard part is going to be fixing procedures and practices, which are optimized for humans communicating via 1960s technology. A lot of what pilots do isn't staying ahead of the plane (as they sometimes refer to it) but dealing with a crazy level of communication overhead of people yelling out courses, altitudes, transponder codes, radio frequencies, and weather information to each other over a really poor radio connection, while baby sitting the auto pilot, running down endless checklists, and micro managing it's gazillions sub systems. It's stressful and even very experienced pilots quickly loose the ability to keep up if they don't fly regularly. Because people fundamentally aren't very good at this stuff. They make mistakes. They mishear things. Etc. It's hard but also very much something that could and should benefit massively from automation. Lots more than we have today. All that check listing can be vastly simplified with automation. All the routine sharing of information can be done in text/binary form and be machine readable so the auto pilot can act on it (with or without human confirmation). Etc. But that requires change and the aviation world is extremely change resistant.
The military will likely get there first. The new B21 apparently can fly unmanned. It may still have a crew but it should be able to operate without one.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#164That's not even considering the safety implications.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#165Earlier 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?
[1] https://www.democracyatwork.info/acc_coercive_laws_of_compet...
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#166Earlier 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…
Playing Devil's advocate: but what if technology makes the number of accidents go down statistically?
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#167This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.
It maximizes earnings through reduction of the cost, not through competitive advantage (i.e. bigger sales volume).
In other costs: it's saving more vs making more money. Two non-exclusive ways of improving your overall financial status.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There simply isn’t enough pilots anywhere in the pipeline. Really? Can you back that up with some reference somewhere? From talking to aspiring airline pilots, it seems that their career trajectory is terrible until they actually land their butt in the seat of a major airline plane. How can we have such a shortage of pilots and at the same time have such lousy pay and working conditions for the infeed?
Not sure if sarcasm, but are you asking how there is a shortage in airline pilots when the incentives to start looking at a career in the field are terrible?
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#169All 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.
Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk if this is an American/West thing but here unions are the main reasons why workers are not exploited and have rights.
The main reason American workers are not exploited is that they can easily get other jobs and would be difficult to replace (but when that’s not the case, they are).