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

211–220 of 267 posts

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

#211

Post by nradov »

josefx wrote: post #84
biomcgary wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not require a pilot with 1.5k of hours and allow co-pilots with 250+ hours for cargo and 500+ hours for passenger? It would decrease the upfront cost of getting trained as a pilot before getting paid.

Some accidents where caused by pilot and copilot providing conflicting input. Having two pilots pilots with significant training differences has the potential to make things worse.

Which accidents are those? Pilot training has long emphasized the importance of having only one pilot actively flying the aircraft at a time, while the other acts as a monitor.

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

#212

Post by kirykl »

Y_Y wrote: post #178
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?

the single point of failure between 1 pilot and 0 pilots is the issue

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

#214

Post by philwelch »

csydas wrote: post #210
philwelch wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it wasn't implicit in my fantasy world, there is no more class difference. False. There would only be class difference. Even in Star Trek, some people are starship captains who own French vineyards or luxury apartments in San Francisco while other people can only manage to live in a trailer in the desert, or on marginal planets on the border that are surrendered to the Cardassians, and if those colonists try to…

You're absolutely missing the point. This is _my_ fantasy world, not bound by the history of Star Trek; the show itself in later series got ruined by awful writers who couldn't figure out how to make a sci-fi utopia fun to watch and instead made a faux-military/action drama for no reason. I want no part in that future. Second, I think you actually miss the point of these episodes; the challenge in the Cardassian bord…

You can have whatever fantasy world you want, but it’s still fundamentally incompatible with human nature. Even in the absence of material constraints, human beings will still compete for relative status. If you live in the United States today, you are incalculably wealthier than even the aristocrats of old, but this has not managed to alleviate envy.

Also, class difference has been decoupled from material wealth for centuries already. Just like a prosperous burgher from an Italian city-state in the early modern period was never considered the equal of an aristocrat who held a fraction of his wealth, a successful arctic fisherman, electrical lineman, or oil field worker is still in a lower social class than a less wealthy Ivy League graduate.

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

#215

Post by IAmNotACellist »

akiselev wrote: post #77
noahtallen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad thing about GA is that it’s just so cost prohibitive. You’re talking tens of thousands of dollars just to get the basic license, and even then it’s not that practically useful (you can’t even fly at night or in weather without an instrument rating). I would love to get my PP, but even in a well-paying field it’s just inaccessible without dedicating a lot more than I’m ready to give.

The GA manufacturing industry seems to have entered death spiral. With the fall in popularity of GA, the number of planes made every year went way down which drove the price of both new and used planes up. We went from producing almost 20,000 GA planes a year in the 1970s to under a thousand a year in the 1990s and it's barely recovered since then (1,500 a year IIRC)

Let me guess, the nadir happened in 1971?

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

#216

Post by WalterBright »

cainxinth wrote: post #199
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…

I love that show. At some point in every episode the narrator says something to the effect of: "Little did they know, that one small oversight would set off a cascade of failures that would seal their fate."

While the show is great, the dialog can be hilarious. "We have to find the cause. Let's check the flight voice recorder." (One always checks the voice recorder.)

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

#217

Post by csydas »

philwelch wrote: post #214
csydas wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely missing the point. This is _my_ fantasy world, not bound by the history of Star Trek; the show itself in later series got ruined by awful writers who couldn't figure out how to make a sci-fi utopia fun to watch and instead made a faux-military/action drama for no reason. I want no part in that future. Second, I think you actually miss the point of these episodes; the challenge in the Cardassian bord…

You can have whatever fantasy world you want, but it’s still fundamentally incompatible with human nature. Even in the absence of material constraints, human beings will still compete for relative status. If you live in the United States today, you are incalculably wealthier than even the aristocrats of old, but this has not managed to alleviate envy. Also, class difference has been decoupled from material wealth for…

Not in the least.

A future where the baseline minimum isn't homelessness and suffering in the street simply has not been done before.

Remove the need to struggle for a basic comfortable life, a new world has a chance to thrive.

The past has the burden of dealing with the fact that the difference between a day-labourer and a wealthy elite is the former has to struggle to meet basic survival and participation in society is eliminated the the basic day-to-day is already met.

Human nature will adjust, just like it did to the industrial revolution, to the digital revolution, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of data entry specialists were replaced by digital automation; even more land-laborers were replaced by farm automation.

The difference with the future I want is that there is a guarantee of a good and basic living, whereas the past had no ability to guarantee this.

Human nature doesn't enter into it; when anyone can travel anywhere, can replicate the same food or goods the wealthy elite currently enjoy exclusively, there is no practical separation between them. It becomes a non-issue; just like some years ago emoji were a status symbol (remember, you used to need to _pay_ for stupid emojis), they're a standard now.

The world can be better, we see this everywhere even today with municipal and community efforts, with OSS, and so on. It's already here in many spheres, it's just a matter of accepting that there's no harm in a percentage of society taking advantage of such a system.

The points you make have no relevance in a world where you don't need oil workers, arctic fisherman, day laborers, and so on.

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

#218

Post by WalterBright »

chmod775 wrote: post #123
WalterBright wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a bit about the MCAS disaster. Very few people know that there were *three* incidences of MCAS runaway trim. What happened with the third one (which was actually the first incident)? It didn't crash. The pilot just turned off the stab trim system. The override was there, it was always there. The thumb switches on the control column overrode it. Turning it off with the STAB TRIM CUTOFF switch turned it off. Thi…

> Turning it off with the STAB TRIM CUTOFF switch turned it off. > The pilots in the second crash did not follow that procedure. "At 05:40:35, the First-Officer called out 'stab trim cut-out' two times. Captain agreed and First-Officer confirmed stab trim cut-out."[1] However they were unable to correct the trim of the aircraft without help of the electrical systems (still being on full takeoff power didn't help). So…

The instructions in the Emergency Airworthiness Directive said:

1. restore trim to normal with the electric thumb switches on the column

2. then turn off the stab trim

The electric trim overrides MCAS.

Boeing Emergency Airworthiness Directive:

"Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT."

https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MA...

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

#219

Post by WalterBright »

bobkazamakis wrote: post #114
WalterBright wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a bit about the MCAS disaster. Very few people know that there were *three* incidences of MCAS runaway trim. What happened with the third one (which was actually the first incident)? It didn't crash. The pilot just turned off the stab trim system. The override was there, it was always there. The thumb switches on the control column overrode it. Turning it off with the STAB TRIM CUTOFF switch turned it off. Thi…

Huh, if only there could have been some kind of training that would be required to use this new system, but that would require recertification!

Pilots are already trained to turn off the STAB TRIM when it misbehaves. The switch to do it is prominent on the console for good reason.

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

#220

Post by WalterBright »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #135
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 civil aviation sector suffered hull losses at the same rate as remote control war drone flying does[0] - even excluding those shot down - the entire industry would be bankrupted within a few years. Also, this is an attempt to reduce labor costs. They aren't going to put a pilot on the ground as primary or backup - they just want to remove the second pilot from the loop entirely. We have a list of airliner cras…

The ones where the second pilot corrected the mistake are not shown on episodes of Aviation Disasters, because they are boring.

The first 737MAX MCAS incident you never hear about because there were 3 pilots in the cockpit, and one of them reached over and turned off the stab trim system.

Post reply on HN