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

171–180 of 267 posts

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

#171

Post by greggarious »

How will they avoid a situation like the Germanwings crash then?

Or is it forever going to be a catch 22: if you can securely lock the cabin to prevent a hijacking, whoever locks themselves in can crash the plane? :/

>Alone in the cockpit after Sondenheimer left to use the bathroom, Lubitz immediately put his plan into action. He moved the cockpit-door toggle switch, located on a pedestal to the left of his seat, from “normal” to “locked” position, disabling Sondenheimer's emergency access code. Moments later, he reached forward and turned the dial on the automatic pilot to bring the plane down to 100 feet. Just before 10:31 A.M., after crossing the French coast near Toulon, the aircraft left its cruising altitude and began dropping at a rate of 3,500 feet per minute, or 58 feet per second.

>At 10:39, Sondenheimer called for a flight attendant to bring him a crowbar hidden in the back of the plane. Grabbing the steel rod, the pilot began smashing the door, then trying to pry and bend it open. The plane had dropped to below 10,000 feet, the snow-encrusted Alps looming closer. Inside the cockpit, Lubitz placed an oxygen mask over his face. “Open this fucking door!” Sondenheimer screamed as passengers stared in bewilderment and mounting terror. Lubitz breathed calmly. At 10:40, an alarm went off: “TERRAIN, TERRAIN! PULL UP, PULL UP!” The plane dipped to 7,000 feet. The alarm signaled a shrill “ping-ping-ping,” a warning of approaching ground. Sixty seconds later, the Airbus's right wing clipped the mountainside at 5,000 feet. The only further sounds picked up by the voice recorder were alarms and screams. Moments later, the jet slammed into the mountain at 403 miles per hour.

https://www.gq.com/story/germanwings-flight-9525-final-momen...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

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

#172

Post by sebzim4500 »

phkahler wrote: post #164

This 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.

Clearly they don't believe it's a zero sum game.

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

#173

Post by Calamitous »

phkahler wrote: post #164

This 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.

I suspect it has more to do with the availability of employees rather than the cost. But I’ll admit that’s based on my hearing anecdotal tales rather than hard facts.

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

#174

Post by jen20 »

nottorp wrote: post #161
tinus_hn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm a tangent thought. Does a bus with an automatic transmission and cruise control on stop on its own if the driver passes out?

That is an argument for two drivers in busses, not one pilot in planes.

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

#175

Post by sebzim4500 »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #9
version_five wrote: post #8

I'm generally anti-union, but happy to see the union here pushing back against this. This is definitely not in passengers' interests, and normally passengers don't have an advocate with any power, so it's nice to see our interests are aligned with the pilots' union.

>I'm generally anti-union, but happy to see the union here pushing back against this. Damn, it's almost like workers rights and safety are aligned in some way...

In this case yes. If the issue under discussion was e.g. frequency of recertification then workers rights and safety would be entirely opposed.

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

#176

Post by sebzim4500 »

mym1990 wrote: post #90
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…

You're never going to see the price of airline tickets fall by 50% due to eliminating pilots, or likely any other reason. The companies will just use the increased margins to pad their own pockets while probably raising prices under the guise of innovation or other additional features. With the exception of a few markets that have price volatility, deflation is a really rare thing. What people get instead are product…

If airlines are so good at padding their own pockets why do they keep going bust? The whole industry is running paper thin margins.

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

#177

Post by Y_Y »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #158
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

What if we just throw the remote pilot from a tall building in the event of a plane crash?

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

#178

Post by Y_Y »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #156

If 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.

What if I offered you three pilots?

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

#179

Post by SnowHill9902 »

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.

It’s skin in the game. A pilot in the cockpit will make sure all safety procedures are followed and correct because his life is literally at play. A pilot at land, not necessarily.
Post reply on HN