Originally published at: Guest Blog: Why Airlines Must Resist The Transition To Single-Pilot Flight Decks - AVweb
The two-pilot flight deck is fundamental to the safety of commercial flight.
Agreed Jason. . Cost cuts don’t justify the risk. Two pilots are essential for safety, judgment, and backup in critical moments. Things are complicated and extensive. Automation helps but can’t replace human oversight. Redundancy must stay.
Thanks for putting this together, it’s a thoughtful, well-grounded piece.
I agree. Two crew installed in the cockpit is the way to go.
However, I heard all the same arguments when the two-crew cockpit on the 747-400 was introduced to reduce the payroll obligation and overhead of a third crew member. The operations community lost that spat, and the financial and operational benefits promised by further reducing the crew to one (and, ultimately, zero) will compel the decision makers to ensure that they win this debate, too.
As for safety, well of course all corporations prefer safety. But they tend to prefer money even more. If we look at the responses of large corporations to obvious safety deficiencies, the issue is usually resolved in favor of profit. If anybody from Union Carbide is in this thread, please do chime in.
The remaining crew member has a choice: resign, or bend over and take it. I hate giving up before starting, but in this case I think that it is justified. The decision has been made. The question has moved on to how it is implemented.
Single pilot operations are fundamentally unsustainable and only serve as a bridge to unpiloted operations. You have the pilots you trust that start with, and you have almost no ability to build up new ones. That process is baked into the current pie: you start as a first officer and learn the ropes before moving to the left seat. How will that occur when there’s only one seat? At some point, your current roster retires and you either remove the seat or replace them with completely unknown, inexperienced people who don’t meet your original assumptions about the quality of pilots you’re asking to do this by themselves.
Curious why no one is similarly advocating for single engine aircraft. Think of the savings!
The same is true of firemen. They’re not paid to perfect their chili recipes or sleep in the firehouse (among other cliches). They’re paid to save people’s lives.
It seems like most advocates of single-pilot cockpits are focusing on where the most time and money is spent, not on the core mission - to get passengers safely to their destination.
Agree on all points but as Boeing, for example, has so aptly demonstrated, money is more important than safety.
It also seems like here as in many other life safety critical careers (medicine, engineering, …) that years working with a number of more experienced practitioners is essential to build skill and judgement with a safety net in place.
The 747-400 series replaced the earlier -100 /200/300 models. These had a Flight Engineer to monitor the 976 dials & switches for the systems and controls. I flew 100 & 200s, then converted to the -436 on intro into BA, subsequently flew the -412 & 412F for SIA, the automation meant only 365 switches & dials plus a vast improvement in auto flight with Cat3B limits for autoland. While flying the 100/200 the FltEng was a valuable and valued member of my crew, but no longer required on the 400 as there was now nothing for him to do. Flying from JFK-AMS with a new and able young F/O we had a medical emergency requiring decision and action just after crossing 30W into Shanwick control. My F/O flew the airplane impeccably while I dealt with the diversion into Glasgow being the nearest major hospital and which I knew well from past years. The rest was a swift diversion with priority landing at Glasgow Abbotsincmh and a safe casevac for the injured cabin crew. Two pillots were fully occupied in the arrival followed by a turnaround for the first ever SIA 747-400 to visit, make new load sheet,refuel , file a flight plan & deice all took the two of us 45minutes busy time followed by continuing the service to AMS. Not a passenger companied at our late arrival. A single crew could not have accomplished this task. Equally consider a 15hour transPacific from HKG-SFO, single pilot, plus a magic monitor from some remote person on the ground. How to deal with a cabin pressure failure, an emergency descent to FL100, then what, no fuel to continue to destination, divert where? Midway, Guam ? with 430 souls on board, just one pilot to deal with this? If the accountant department consider 2 to drive too expensive, consider a hull loss over the middle of the ocean.
1 Like
I agree there is really no good argument for single pilot operations. If you are willing to compromise safety for cost savings, the logical conclusion would be no humans in the cockpit. Having just one is the worst of both options: single point of failure, plus the remaining potential for human error - a significant factor in most accidents.
C.
Not if, but when.
It’ll start at first with the freighters, but single pilot 121 ops will come — whether we like it or not. And after a trial period, soon to follow will be semi or fully autonomous operations — ala Global Hawk.
I see there’s lotsa “Luddites” out there … so, let the “hate mail” begin … 
1 Like
The author makes a declarative statement like “The two-pilot system is not designed for the everyday, uneventful flight but for the rare, critical moments when human judgment, coordination, and backup are indispensable” then walks it back somewhat in the concluding paragraph by describing the team concept in other contexts. But the two-pilot system drastically decreases everyday pilot error for all flights, not just the outliers.
Yes, challenge-and-response checklists require two pilots but that’s not what I’m referring to. Both pilots check the logbook for discrepancies before every flight. Both pilots read any applicable MELs. Both pilots review the flight plan in the FMS when it’s first entered and every time it’s changed, even slightly. Both pilots agree and acknowledge every time the state of the aircraft changes, whether it’s as simple as a temporary vector, an altitude change, or a full route clearance. Both pilots brief procedures, particularly critical ones such as instrument approaches and non-standard engine-out procedures. And the pilot monitoring is actively checking the pilot flying at all times to make sure the pilot flying is actually performing as planned.
Single pilot ops, done well, are reasonably safe but aren’t as safe as two pilot ops no matter how good the engineering gets. Individual pilots slip up; I do it every time I fly whether it’s alone or as part of a trained crew. The difference is that as part of a crew, most of these slip-ups are trapped before actually acting on them, then the ones acted on are mitigated in real time before making any operational impact. Until we have HAL in the right seat able to say, “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that [because you’re about to screw up]”, then two pilots are the only way to go.
1 Like
I agree with the need for two pilots over single pilot and automation. I find it interesting that people who support single pilot ops cite the expense savings and the highly competitive airline industry as reasons for the change. I admit that a second pilot is not a trivial expense, but compared with fuel costs, aircraft purchase/leasing and maintenance, it is not a major driving force. Besides, if all airlines have to maintain the two pilot system, they are all on the same level playing field expense wise. Having said all that, I too, foresee that freight operations will be the camel’s nose under the tent with regard to single pilot ops.
Take a look at the marine industry. Modern ships are competently manoevered by one person having the con of the ship including docking and departures. No regulatory agency would allow single person control of a cargo ship or cruise ship. An additional number of crew must be onboard at their working stations when the vessel is at sea. The crew complement is regulated by the registry authority taking into account the normal practices of the venture plus the ability to respond effectively to emergencies such as fire and flooding. The crew members are licenced by the governing state for the different tasks required to be performed such as machinery control, firefighting, passenger control as well as navigation and communications. Without adequate crew no agency would extend insurance coverage for the venture. A 2 person cockpit together with adequate cabin crew for passenger flights is the only logical and legal choice.
Only aircraft emergencies support your argument for two pilots, and that won’t last long. Incapacitation is already being dealt with by emergency landing tech, proven by Garmin in GA aircraft. Suicidal pilots argue for zero humans in the cockpit, not two. Cabin emergencies can be dealt with by cabin crew, you don’t need a pilot.
Pilots have made themselves a target by using their monopoly union position to raise their cost to the point that every airline has to find a way to cut it. No amount of whining or complaining about safety while striking for ever higher wages will make any difference. Abolish the union and artificial supply restrictions like 1500 hours for second seat, letting wages find a competitive level, and watch the pressure evaporate.
1 Like
Not a cogent reply to this issue. Should you take the time to consider the complex issues beginning with regulatory, crew worktimes, emergency response, insurance coverage and loss expenses your view may be different. The analogy to marine transportation is well established over centuries in the modern era regarding coverage and compensation when adverse events happen. Single person point of failure is unsustainable in today’s complex transportation systems, Too much money is at stake and social conscience will not accept such shortcomings. If you choose to invest in insurance for such a risky venture with no redundancy on the flight deck then you might be lucky but I think the status quo will prevail.
I wonder what dollar value is being guesstimated for the first hull loss. It must be less than they think they will save on crew pay…
We have so many sectors in our lives which are subject to the rules of blind profitability. If course the cost of loss of heartbeat is simply another calculated factor. In some of our “highly developed” countries, it is no longer possible to get professional medical care, professional legal representation or professional anything. You either slap a unlimited credit-card on the table and find pro’s who will use it, or you simply experience trash.
One doctor recently told me that he forsees the complete collapse of our medical/ pharmaceutical sectors within 2-3 years. After living my own odyssey for the last 6 months, I don’t think it will be that long.
Single Pilot Airliners are a complete NOGO.
We’ll see it being tested pretty soon and more people will work for free or half the standard salary.
For every example you give (many of them - Colgan, Germanwings- support the argument for more automation and less pilot authority) i can give 2 where a next-gen autopilot would hv brought all pax home safely. Through progress in engine reliability and avionics (still some way to go), pilots have become the weakest link in the safety chain. Lets analyze all accidents and divide them into “pure technical” vs “pilot played a role”. There is bias within the pilot community, and I understand, but we are pilots, driven by facts, instruments, information to steer our reaction, not by pride or greed. Also : consider the tech of tomorrow, not yesterday. There are many less-than-perfect landings, a computer has the power to make every landing a greaser. Why not ?
1 Like
I know I have been criticized for my stand on SMS, this subject is a perfect example. Going to single pilot pt 121 operations would go against any of the risks SMS is supposed to mitigate. So my opinion on SMS hasn’t changed. With all the talk of single pilot pt121 ops, it just reinforces my belief that SMS is just another fad just like ISO9000 was in the 1990’s.