I found this interesting.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -advantage
As automation evolves I find it hard not to envision single pilot heavies in the future......and a further study and analysis of one pilot vs none.
One pilot vs two
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
[quote]Munson's newly purchased aircraft crashed and burned when it stalled short of the runway while attempting to land after completing several touch-and-goes. The two passengers escaped from the wreckage with serious injuries. The NTSB determined the accident was caused by the pilot a failure to recognize the need for and to take action to maintain sufficient airspeed to prevent a stall into the ground during an attempted landing. The pilot also didn't recognize the need for timely and sufficient power application to prevent the stall during an approach conducted inadvertently without flaps extended. [/quote]
:shock:
:shock:
-
Slick Goodlin
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:46 pm
My gut tells me that single pilot airline ops would quickly prove to be too error prone. Then comes the study of whether it's better to return to two pilots on board or drop to zero. Bear in mind of course that this study will be predicated by a near 100% rate of accidents caused by human error.
I hope I'm wrong. I still want to be paid to fly airplanes.
I hope I'm wrong. I still want to be paid to fly airplanes.
-
Liquid Charlie
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
Fuck I still miss a flight engineer, it's like engines, the more the better and single engine IFR (even if it's a turbine) makes me very uncomfortable. More of my engine failures and shut downs have been with turbine and jet engines
-
Trey Kule
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:19 am
There are two things I hear in the debate...
1. We need the other pilot as a check.
The stats do not support this.
2. We need a pilot to be in the plane when the automated stuff goes wonky.
My feeling is that ultimately automation failures will eventually prove to happen far less frequently then pilot errors. In short, safety will increase.
It is such an emotional issue that attacks our very self image as pilots that automation may reduce accidents, and we are fast becoming the weakest link in the system.
I am guessing automated planes would not pitch up in a stall, shut down the wrong engine,or line up to land on a taxiway...
But these are really antecodal. Time will tell. Until then we can expect to go to the airport in our fully autonomous vehicles...
1. We need the other pilot as a check.
The stats do not support this.
2. We need a pilot to be in the plane when the automated stuff goes wonky.
My feeling is that ultimately automation failures will eventually prove to happen far less frequently then pilot errors. In short, safety will increase.
It is such an emotional issue that attacks our very self image as pilots that automation may reduce accidents, and we are fast becoming the weakest link in the system.
I am guessing automated planes would not pitch up in a stall, shut down the wrong engine,or line up to land on a taxiway...
But these are really antecodal. Time will tell. Until then we can expect to go to the airport in our fully autonomous vehicles...
-
Nark1
I don’t know where or if they’re published, but I’m not worried about autonomous aviation, based solely on my experience alongside UAV’s overseas.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]need a pilot to be in the plane when the automated stuff goes wonky[/quote]
This sounds good in theory, but practice has shown us that especially
as time goes by, the pilots in the cockpit with weaker and weaker skills
are NOT capable of recognizing when automation goes bad - they cannot
take over and do the "right thing".
See the Indonesia 737 who's "safety system" (try to ignore the irony)
ran the trim all the way nose down, and crashed vertically ... to avoid
a stall.
The two pilots on board that airplane were miles behind it. No one
can pretend that they got ahead of the automation, took over, and
did the "right thing" that we pilots think is our job.
Look at Asiana 218 ... crashed a B777 in perfect wx, when they
tried to hand-fly it. What kind of a backup to faulty automation were
that crew?
How did AF447 handle their pitot failure? By holding the stick all the
way back for 3.5 minutes until they crashed into the ocean.
First, pilots need to get really good at the fundamentals. This is something
that is disappearing as time goes by. Without that fundamental skill, they
are incapable of hand-flying the aircraft when shit goes south.
People think I'm a silly old man that doesn't know anything compared to
them, and they're probably right.
But IMHO if you think you're worth $300k/yr as a pilot, you should fucking
well learn to hand-fly smoothly and precisely - like George Lothian.
Become a master of your trade.
[img width=500 height=332]http://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/ ... and_15.jpg[/img]
You owe it to your craft to be confident that you could do that.
Needles in the donuts. You on the left side of the LOC, your FO on the right side of the LOC.
This sounds good in theory, but practice has shown us that especially
as time goes by, the pilots in the cockpit with weaker and weaker skills
are NOT capable of recognizing when automation goes bad - they cannot
take over and do the "right thing".
See the Indonesia 737 who's "safety system" (try to ignore the irony)
ran the trim all the way nose down, and crashed vertically ... to avoid
a stall.
The two pilots on board that airplane were miles behind it. No one
can pretend that they got ahead of the automation, took over, and
did the "right thing" that we pilots think is our job.
Look at Asiana 218 ... crashed a B777 in perfect wx, when they
tried to hand-fly it. What kind of a backup to faulty automation were
that crew?
How did AF447 handle their pitot failure? By holding the stick all the
way back for 3.5 minutes until they crashed into the ocean.
First, pilots need to get really good at the fundamentals. This is something
that is disappearing as time goes by. Without that fundamental skill, they
are incapable of hand-flying the aircraft when shit goes south.
People think I'm a silly old man that doesn't know anything compared to
them, and they're probably right.
But IMHO if you think you're worth $300k/yr as a pilot, you should fucking
well learn to hand-fly smoothly and precisely - like George Lothian.
Become a master of your trade.
[img width=500 height=332]http://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/ ... and_15.jpg[/img]
You owe it to your craft to be confident that you could do that.
Needles in the donuts. You on the left side of the LOC, your FO on the right side of the LOC.
-
Liquid Charlie
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
Colonel has nailed it and automation has taken over from CFIT as the next major safety issue. This is the catch 22 of aviation right now. Automation erodes stick and rudder skills and as automation takes over more and more the crews don't have the skills to save the day (they would likely be better with gamers in the flight deck). Airlines will have to buy Pitts for each crew members to keep there hands and feet exercised :-)
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 3989 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 5 Replies
- 2931 Views
-
Last post by Nark
-
- 62 Replies
- 9914 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
