MarkVI

Hah. This comment made me chuckle. If not because of its glaring ignorance, then because of the perfect example of poor stewardship this person displays.

Never be this pilot. Always strive to leave a career knowing you’ve made it better for those who come after you. You’re not remembered for your flying skill or your abilities to faithfully pilot your aircraft.

Your legacy is what you left for others in your wake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MarkVI

I’m going to reply to this comment directly, since it shows a level of misunderstanding of career, and an exceptionally blatant level of apathy.

We aren’t minimum-wage elevator operators, and we aren’t milk men. We are highly trained, highly skilled individuals who make our money when things go wrong.

We do the day-to-day without thinking about it, but unlike a milk man or a telephone operator, when our equipment fails there’s a real, tangible risk for loss of life. If you really equate yourself to something so menial, do all the others a favor and stop flying.

Automation of this level opens a broad array of risks in the flight deck that we don’t understand because we’ve never seen it. To roll over and accept it because “you’ll be gone,” is pathetic. Rather than actually caring about what it is you supposedly do, your statement is that we should simply let it happen because history says we should.

One pilot in an aircraft increases a variety of risks, from missed cross-checks, to getting behind the aircraft during contingent situations, to the inability to mitigate an emergency utilizing CRM, to inflight pilot medical events, to cyber security issues, to failed automation complications. The airplane is not an elevator. The airplane is not a telephone. If you think it is turn in your wings and leave. If you have no positive, constructive stewardship to offer others, simply don’t respond to the comment.

Im very familiar with this research, from one Human Factors Engineer on the team, a technical analyst, and having personally seen NASA’s “superdispatcher” test bench. It’s a joke, and NASA is pushing it as real. More importantly, these engineers think they will actually be able to produce the system in the next 3-7 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

joseolay

If airlines went single pilot, the 65 age limit is too old, maybe 55-60 tops. The medical requirements would increase as well, maybe a weight limit along with a basket of other tight restrictions. More pilots would retire due to the added age and medical scrutiny, probably more than half so at least there wouldn't be furloughs.

Slick111

There are two important points hidden in these posts. And since I really like pointing out hypocrisy when I see it, I thought I'd comment on these two hidden points of hypocrisy.

CRM had become increasingly important, (globally), over about a 20-30 period. Now it seems that the importance of CRM has, or may become subordinate to profits in the minds of BOTH the air carriers AND the Federal Government (i.e F.A.A.).

So as long as there was a steady supply, (or a "glut") of pilots and as long as air carriers were legally bound to have two pilots in the cockpit, why not encourage them work together to insure safety, (and insure fewer losses of profits, err, I mean lives and equipment). But now that pilots are getting more scarce, (i.e. more EXPENSIVE), CRM is taking a backseat to profits as corporations (and governmental agencies) can suddenly justify weighing the "risk of loss" vs. "increasing labor costs" on the income statement.


And,....

You'll notice that, although air carriers are worried about the supply of pilots, they are only trying to increase the availability of pilots from the cheaper end of the pilot supply chain! They are diligently trying to increase the number of NEW pilots. But what they are not doing is lobbying the government to raise the mandatory pilot retirement age. Why???? Because 67 year old pilots are harder on net income than are 23 year old pilots!

I'm not arguing for or against raising the retirement age. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.

tomgoodman

Actually, Management greed is what will save our jobs for many decades to come. Automating one (let alone two) pilot seats will cost a fortune in money and risk today, in return for an undisclosed payoff at an unknown time. CEOs are not interested in sacrificing their own bottom line to enrich their distant successors.

ZeroTT

The obvious test ground for this is augmented crew ops. If you're an hour past needing a second copilot and this lets the captain and FO each get a 1 hour nap ... that makes $$$.

MarkVI

Yes, but the point of CRM was never because there were two pilots. It came about a string of accidents and incidents in which the subordinate crews either did not, or were not, leverage(d) appropriately in the flight deck. CRM didn’t come into existence for the sake of getting a CA and an FO to be friendly, it was the reaction to a lack of safety.

My comment specifically identifies the need for a crew, one to fly the aircraft and one to handle the emergency, when contingencies occur. That doesn’t change just because technology advances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kyavn

For the people that couldn’t make it, can someone tell what was discussed at the town hall yesterday?

Throwitaway

The videos will be up on the website
by next week.

FlyGuy2112

Spent the past 3 day in DC at the ALPA legislative summit dealing with this issue. Just finished up meetings with mulitple lawmakers and the single pilot provision will most likely be struck out of H.R. 4

There’s zero support for the admendment and no one has been lobbying for it.