Originally published at: EASA Pulls Back On Single-Pilot Ops - AVweb
Agency says even the most modern flight decks are not sophisticated enough to fill in for one pilot.
After reading the article, the movie “Dumb and Dumber” comes to mind.
Yippee! I’ll no longer need two spark plugs per cylinder or two magnetos. And that pesky electric backup fuel pump can go away, too. Spoiler alert … I will NEVER get onto an airliner with one pilot … EVER!
What about SMS? It’s the Europeans that pushed this nonsense into ICAO. How can any government agency justify single pilot airline ops within any SMS? Good thing someone came to their senses about this even though for the wrong reason!
I bet a lot of people feel that way. And I think 121 ops are different from 135. I am getting on a 135 air taxi scheduled in a couple weeks. I wouldn’t unless I believed in their systems.
Did you even read the story.
An airliner with one pilot isn’t part of the discussion.
Just delaying the inevitable… Where were you pilots when the Radio Operators jobs were on the line? So too the Navigators and Flight Engineers… not a peep!
Ohh… but when your jobs are under threat you all become activists against the technology advancement.
Cargo ops will trial the technology first then it will move into the budget airlines and that will complete the proving.
Make way as tomorrow is coming your way.
1 Like
I would be interested in a long wager. When exactly would you predict domestic 121 scheduled passenger aircraft (with 90 or more seats) will be hauling paying passengers with only one flight crew? Pick a number. You could pick 50 years if you like, but then we’ll want to escrow the prize as I will not likely live that long.
I’m with Larry, I’d feel better with two up front – dog optional.
Such a shame. EASA should outline exactly what is required and go ahead, in the interest of safety. There are too many mishaps that wouldn’t have happened with a computer at the controls. Too many humans are stupid, drugged, tired, confused, distracted, suicidal, … Drones have proven that autonomous works just fine, today. Now look forward a few years and forget your pity personal interest for a second. The benefits are many. Obviously we start with freighters for a few years. I wouldn’t hesitate to fly a super-automated aircraft, I may even prefer it. And let’s do the same w ATC : what a silly way to be guiding traffic flows. And yes : even there humans cause or contribute to mishaps. I don’t get why the pilot community, training to trust the proof they see on their panel, are so blinded by their wallets when it comes to automation. Follow the accident trails, then ask yourselves : are we always part of the solution, or are there too many cases where we were a part of the problem ? Humans are fallible, passengers deserve better.
1 Like
Computers, built and programmed by fallible humans, are even more fallible. My day job is in support of high-end computers and would never trust my life to a fully-autonomous car or plane. Passengers deserve better.
1 Like
Humans may be fallible, but in the occupations you mentioned they contribute to improved safety and efficiency every minute of every day, somewhere in the world.
We are always part of both the problem and the solution. If it wasn’t for human activity and ingenuity, those machines wouldn’t be in the sky in the first place, so the fault will absolutely always be with a human.
When I look at the stuff that current AI produces, I wouldn’t trust it to wash my car, never mind fly my plane.
Commercial flight is for airlines and air taxis; maybe 5000 in the US and that many again around Earth. Private flights around 250,000 private aircraft in the US do not require, I repeat, do not require two pilots. So mixing commercial and private flight operations is highly erroneous and offensive. Go get some FAR training, please. Ultralight aircraft in the US have their own FAR part 103; which can only be single pilot operation. I call this, wake up!!! EASA are the European experts. So they know everything I have stated here. Why do not you know? Everything starts with knowing the rules, which you apparently do not. Or the title EASA Pulls Back on Single-Pilot Ops is for commercial flying only, I repeat only. Making these distinctions in talking about flight a necessity. Otherwise, you are spreading disinformation; nothing uglier.
Terry, I fail to comprehend. My apologies.
EASA has stated, that single pilot cockpits are not currently considered as a sustainably safe option for todays commercial air carrier cockpit.
Where do you connect this to Part 103, which does not even exist in EASA jurisdiction?
Please study the FAA FARs. The US system is divided into two parts: commercial which includes air taxi; and private, everything else. To my knowledge, EASA does it the same way. Meaning what was stated, applies only to commercial aircraft and air taxi. Not to the private aircraft market which is the by far the largest part of the market. 5000 commercial operations in the US vs 250,000 private aircraft; which are two different markets regulated differently. All private aircraft in the US are certificated under parts: 21; 23; 24; and 103; with ultralight aircraft under part 103. Light sport aircraft, private aircraft, have their own FAA part, but I would need to look it up.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.