FastDEW

In my opinion this is just a bad idea. What happens when the guy eats something bad before the flight or worse has a heart attack? Let alone all of the other obvious challenges to this.......

Embraer reveals vision for single-pilot airliners

rickair7777

This will only happen when the airplane itself is fully automated, at which point the single pilot becomes a piece of backup equipment.

But we are a very, very, very long ways away from that. The cost, technical, regulatory, and public perception hurdles are so high that pilots are simply the cheapest solution for the foreseeable future.

Could we do it right now? Yes. Does it make sense? No. It would be at least equivalent in cost to an apollo/manahattan project...who is going to pay trillions of dollars to get rid of few pilots? Not the government. Airlines? They are lucky if they can plan ahead far enough to make payroll.

I have seen a similar proposal in Europe, floated by some organization nobody had ever heard of which was obviously sponsored by some airline association to scare pilot labor groups. When boeing or airbus starts to make serious noise about this, then it's time to worry. But you'll still have 20 years from then.

FlyJSH

I seem to remember 747s once required a flight engineer.

There are only two reasons we still have two pilots: regulations and liability.

Look at the 1900, Shorts, Banderantes, and Metros. All of them can be flown by one pilot or two depending on the type of operation. Same plane, but the regulations determine the crew.

It took only 30ish years to go from Doolittle's first instrument flight to commercial use of autoland. It once took eight engines to push a B-52, but only two for a 777. Navigators took star shots into the 70s and could calculate positions to plus or minus a mile or so, now man made "stars" drive our GPS receivers.

For the cost, figure an "average" Boeing or Airbus FO costs a company $150,000-200,000 yearly (salary, training, benefits, etc.). Each plane requires five FOs. So a company spends close to a million a year on FOs per plane. Consider an airframe has a 30 year lifespan. That means $25 million or so over the life of the plane. Considering a new 737 costs around $80 million, adding a few more million to the final price, for single pilot certification would be a steal.

But, cost of the liability for single pilot ops could be too high, just as the liability of a single engine 737 could be too high. Not to mention, getting the public and the FAA to accept single pilot ops will be difficult.

mmaviator

The day we see trains that don't need a crew to operate/monitor them will be the beginning. I'm sure trains have their challenges in a operatorless system as do aircraft.

rickair7777

FE's operated systems. Systems are now highly automated.

You forgot the REAL reason: Redundancy. Other than the wing spars, there are no single-point-safe items on an airliner, everything is redundant.

What happens if the pilot is incapacitated? It happens several times a year (or more) in general aviation. Airlines conduct WAY more flight segments than GA.

It might make the local news if some old guy passes out and crashes his 172 in a cornfield. Now what if that happened to a 777 on approach into EWR...

In order for this to work, the airplane has to be fully, 100% capable of flying itself and dealing with any conceivable emergency. Anything less would entail catastrophic risk which the regulators, insurers, and public would not go for.


All good stuff...but none of it can think like a human being. How is a computer going to decide when to turn the seatbelt sign on and off? How about navigate around a bunch of TC or TB? How about irregular ops?

In 1970 they thought that by 2010 we would all be flying around in sub-orbital spaceliners (LAX-NRT in 45 minutes) and vacationing on the moon...that didn't really work out now did it?

True, and that's a lot of money. But not enough to pay for re-engineering the entire domestic (or global) ATC system, including ground handling at airports. Also it's not just a matter of adding equipment to current airliners. You would really need a "clean-slate" design to incorporate all of the additional redundancy and new technology. Airlines are not going to throw away all the airplanes they have now and rush out to buy new ones.

When the day comes where the ATC system is already in place, the regulations are approved, automated airliners are available in the boeing showroom, and market analysis determines the public will go for it...THEN airlines will consider doing it.


It's not just liability...that calculation derives from actual risk determinations.

Also what are the economic advantages for airlines? Once this technology deploys, all airlines will back to where they started...competing with each other for razor-thin margins, pilots or no pilots.

The airlines will do it if it's available because they have to compete...but the airline industry is NOT going to rush out in unison and spend trillions of dollars to get this thing done. It will not result in windfall profits...profits will be the same thin margins as always, but the pax will get a cheaper ticket. The airlines are not going to invest just to do that.

How will it happen? Regulations and ATC systems will gradually change to allow UAVs to operate in civil airspace, for a variety of applications. Once that is in place and proven reliable, then somebody might start looking at unmanned (or less manned) airliners. Somebody has to build it before they come...

Razorback flyer

Also consider what would happen should the automation making all this possible fail. It becomes a very busy flight deck at that point - probably a little much for one guy to handle.

A second pilot also provides a check and balance for the decision making process. An FO saying "what the heck are you doing" at least makes the captain stop and think about what he's about to do. Also, CVR's become kinda useless in determining accident causes - unless the guy talks to himself.

Even embraer says that this is just a concept at this point, and faces pretty serious challenges - not just from a technical perspective, but from a regulatory and public perception stance too. And at best, the prototyep is 10-15 years away.

So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it just yet. I will probably happen some day, but I don't think I my lifetime.

FastDEW

Well, I do think he might right at the end..... "Oh Sh*t!!!!!"