5 ms·

You would think so but e.g. airlines pushed quite heavily to reduce pilots from 3 to 2 and occasionally lobby for 1.

by Macha 2y ago

equestria 2y ago
Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight. Public transit is quite different. It's not as opex-intensive as flying, it's usually subsidized by the state, and it's often pretty much a monopoly.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight They also removed the roles of radio operator, navigator, flight engineer and third officer without compromising safety or capability [1]. I'd want to see studies. But single pilot + relief crew should be safe enough to start with for long-haul flights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew
- nradov 2y ago
  Single pilot is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting. Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help. The higher risk level might be judged acceptable for cargo flights but I think it will be a long time until automation makes it viable for scheduled passenger flights.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting This argument was made for each of those now-obsolete roles. I'd want to see data before concluding there is a benefit to a second person on checklists. In reality, that advantage would only manifest if the captain is inexperienced, self-check systems have failed and the radio/remote ops have failed. > Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? I don't think that's a strong argument. The only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected. Planes so rarely have excitement occur at that phase of flight that the odds are really low of it happening at the exact moment one of the pilots is using the head.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected Planes don't have something go wrong to the point of running checklists in an expected way.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents. More importantly I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground. Or flights where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid. Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents. Not a great argument for a second pilot unless the second pilot never goes to the bathroom. The human factors involved in Germanwings 9525 didn't randomly occur during the flight, they specifically occured while the co-pilot was in the bathroom. > Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that Between the reliability of piston engines versus jets to the experience of someone with a PPL versus ATP, this comparison includes far more variables than number of pilots. > I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground I can do that for any value of N. The question is what the ratio is between N = 1 and N = 2, and how that has changed with evolving automation. > where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid Not really an argument for a second pilot either... I'm not saying we have the evidence to say a single pilot is sufficient. I'm arguing that nothing you've brought up shows it's critical. That said, I'm sure we'll wait until another aviation authority pioneers the way. American aviation ceded the first-mover position decades ago.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    You’d think they were already investigating the use of automation in emergencies. Like going through checklists, debugging situations in real time, etc…it seems like an area where AI could actually be useful beyond current auto pilot/landing tech.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      It's just a bunch of if conditions, no need for AI. The problem is that sometimes something not planned in those if conditions happens, and then you need deduction and high knowledge of physics and the aircraft systems.
      - dzhiurgis 2y ago
        You just killed a Copilot
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > something not planned in those if conditions happens, and then you need deduction and high knowledge of physics and the aircraft systems This is an argument for offloading checklists to an automated system. Not having more pilots to run more checklists.
        sofixa 2y ago
        On modern planes there is a very high degree of automation already. But it's a fine balance, because too complex automations can be confusing or unpredictable to the pilots. There are a few crashes due to pilots not understanding/fighting with automation.
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    But then there are so many crashes where having 2 pilots was kinda the cause of crash...
    - nradov 2y ago
      How many crashes?
rootusrootus 2y ago
The numbers are pretty different, though. A subway driver might make $50K/yr and the train has a thousand people, with short runs at high frequency. A long haul flight will have 300-400 passengers for hours and 3-4 pilots each making $250K/yr.
- do_not_redeem 2y ago
  On the flip side, a subway/bus ticket is usually around $1-$10, while an airplane ticket is $100-$1000.
- lores 2y ago
  That's way more than the end-of-career salary for a pilot at a major UK airline, around £140k. Newly-qualified pilots at Ryanair make around £23k.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    It's a bit more lopsided in the US. A regional carrier pilot makes peanuts (due to how they are paid, only when wheels are up, there have been pilots effectively paid lower than minimum wage). At regular carrier like American/United/Alaska, pilots make waaaaay more. A captain may make half a mil. If you can suffer through the regionals and make your way up the ranks, it eventually pays off.

You would think so but e.g. airlines pushed quite heavily to reduce pilots from 3 to 2 and occasionally lobby for 1.

by Macha 2y ago

You would think so but e.g. airlines pushed quite heavily to reduce pilots from 3 to 2 and occasionally lobby for 1.

Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight. Public transit is quite different. It's not as opex-intensive as flying, it's usually subsidized by the state, and it's often pretty much a monopoly.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight They also removed the roles of radio operator, navigator, flight engineer and third officer without compromising safety or capability [1]. I'd want to see studies. But single pilot + relief crew should be safe enough to start with for long-haul flights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew

nradov 2y ago
Single pilot is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting. Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help. The higher risk level might be judged acceptable for cargo flights but I think it will be a long time until automation makes it viable for scheduled passenger flights.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting This argument was made for each of those now-obsolete roles. I'd want to see data before concluding there is a benefit to a second person on checklists. In reality, that advantage would only manifest if the captain is inexperienced, self-check systems have failed and the radio/remote ops have failed. > Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? I don't think that's a strong argument. The only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected. Planes so rarely have excitement occur at that phase of flight that the odds are really low of it happening at the exact moment one of the pilots is using the head.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected Planes don't have something go wrong to the point of running checklists in an expected way.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents. More importantly I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground. Or flights where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid. Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents. Not a great argument for a second pilot unless the second pilot never goes to the bathroom. The human factors involved in Germanwings 9525 didn't randomly occur during the flight, they specifically occured while the co-pilot was in the bathroom. > Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that Between the reliability of piston engines versus jets to the experience of someone with a PPL versus ATP, this comparison includes far more variables than number of pilots. > I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground I can do that for any value of N. The question is what the ratio is between N = 1 and N = 2, and how that has changed with evolving automation. > where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid Not really an argument for a second pilot either... I'm not saying we have the evidence to say a single pilot is sufficient. I'm arguing that nothing you've brought up shows it's critical. That said, I'm sure we'll wait until another aviation authority pioneers the way. American aviation ceded the first-mover position decades ago.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  You’d think they were already investigating the use of automation in emergencies. Like going through checklists, debugging situations in real time, etc…it seems like an area where AI could actually be useful beyond current auto pilot/landing tech.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    It's just a bunch of if conditions, no need for AI. The problem is that sometimes something not planned in those if conditions happens, and then you need deduction and high knowledge of physics and the aircraft systems.
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      You just killed a Copilot
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > something not planned in those if conditions happens, and then you need deduction and high knowledge of physics and the aircraft systems This is an argument for offloading checklists to an automated system. Not having more pilots to run more checklists.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        On modern planes there is a very high degree of automation already. But it's a fine balance, because too complex automations can be confusing or unpredictable to the pilots. There are a few crashes due to pilots not understanding/fighting with automation.
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  But then there are so many crashes where having 2 pilots was kinda the cause of crash...
  - nradov 2y ago
    How many crashes?

rootusrootus 2y ago

The numbers are pretty different, though. A subway driver might make $50K/yr and the train has a thousand people, with short runs at high frequency. A long haul flight will have 300-400 passengers for hours and 3-4 pilots each making $250K/yr.

do_not_redeem 2y ago
On the flip side, a subway/bus ticket is usually around $1-$10, while an airplane ticket is $100-$1000.
lores 2y ago
That's way more than the end-of-career salary for a pilot at a major UK airline, around £140k. Newly-qualified pilots at Ryanair make around £23k.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  It's a bit more lopsided in the US. A regional carrier pilot makes peanuts (due to how they are paid, only when wheels are up, there have been pilots effectively paid lower than minimum wage). At regular carrier like American/United/Alaska, pilots make waaaaay more. A captain may make half a mil. If you can suffer through the regionals and make your way up the ranks, it eventually pays off.