Do Commercial Planes Need Co-Pilots?

[djmodifyd]

you mean planes don't have a green "go" button and a red "land" button?

jk

A modern jetliner can autoland...but the whole taxi to the gate thing could be difficult. but then again you could just grab a beer, blow up the slide and get out that way as well.

 

[dmr727]

A modern jetliner can autoland...but the whole taxi to the gate thing could be difficult. but then again you could just grab a beer, blow up the slide and get out that way as well.

LOL - that whole situation still cracks me up.

 

[quagmire]

Correct me if I am wrong dmr as I am not too familiar with the regs yet, but even though the plane can autoland itself, the pilots are still required to manually land the plane. They use the autopilot to shoot the approach and line up on the glideslope with the ILS and when they get down to a certain altitude they have to take over right? Or am I confused/wrong/ misinformed?

 

[yg17]

LOL - that whole situation still cracks me up.

That guy is a hero to anyone who has ever worked a day in any sort of customer service position.

 

[dmr727]

Correct me if I am wrong dmr as I am not too familiar with the regs yet, but even though the plane can autoland itself, the pilots are still required to manually land the plane.

As I understand it (and I'm no expert here as my equipment isn't autoland capable), from a regulatory standpoint there's a list of things that need to be approved (the airport, the flight crew, the operator, etc...) for it to be allowed. But assuming the requirements are met, it can be done.

My wife would know more about this - I'll ask a couple of questions.

 

[djmodifyd]

I believe CATIII approaches are full computerflown/autoland. The approach (at the airport), the aircraft, and the aircrew all have to be certified to fly CATIII approaches.

CATI and CATII approaches are "handflown" while the catIII is not.

again, I may be wrong on this.

 

[sushi]

Regardless, the key point is what happens when things get stuffed?

Technology is great when it works. There is no guarantee that it will. And when that time happens where something doesn't work, that's when you want 2 rated pilots in the cockpit.

 

[Mal67]

Regardless, the key point is what happens when things get stuffed?

Technology is great when it works. There is no guarantee that it will. And when that time happens where something doesn't work, that's when you want 2 rated pilots in the cockpit.

Personally I'll take the real pilots anyday with the technology supporting them .... But I do wonder just how far into the future we will have to go before planes fly with no flesh and blood pilots at all!

 

[sushi]

Personally I'll take the real pilots anyday with the technology supporting them .... But I do wonder just how far into the future we will have to go before planes fly with no flesh and blood pilots at all!

Likewise. I would pay the extra to have a full crew on the planes that I fly as a passenger.

I don't ever see a day when passenger planes, or spaceships for that matter, routinely fly without a flight crew. There are too many possible emergencies that could occur. And until computers can think like humans, and not just imitation through a series of steps, I don't see it happening.

 

[dmr727]

I believe CATIII approaches are full computerflown/autoland. The approach (at the airport), the aircraft, and the aircrew all have to be certified to fly CATIII approaches.

CATI and CATII approaches are "handflown" while the catIII is not.

After getting a little more information from my wife (she flies an Airbus for a major airline), this is pretty accurate. She *can* do an autoland off a Cat II approach, but those are usually hand flown. She says autoland is horrible as far as workload for the pilots - so autoland is typically used only when required (Cat III), or when doing their one required autoland per month. Autolands are not approved for any approaches other than Cat II or Cat III (which are available at only a small percentage of airports, and even then only select runways).

This is based on my wife's ops manual - I'm not sure how it works for other airlines, although I'll bet it's pretty similar.

 

[quagmire]

After getting a little more information from my wife (she flies an Airbus for a major airline), this is pretty accurate. She *can* do an autoland off a Cat II approach, but those are usually hand flown. She says autoland is horrible as far as workload for the pilots - so autoland is typically used only when required (Cat III), or when doing their one required autoland per month. Autolands are not approved for any approaches other than Cat II or Cat III (which are available at only a small percentage of airports, and even then only select runways).

This is based on my wife's ops manual - I'm not sure how it works for other airlines, although I'll bet it's pretty similar.

Why is autoland so bad for the workload? Because pilots have to keep on monitoring glide slope, runway, etc to make sure everything is working?

 

[iJohnHenry]

Why is autoland so bad for the workload? Because pilots have to keep on monitoring glide slope, runway, etc to make sure everything is working?

Yes, because the pilot then becomes the fail-safe system.

Remember the last computer controlled flight? Didn't work out so well.

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it."

 

[steviem]

That guy is a hero to anyone who has ever worked a day in any sort of customer service position.

That guy just showed to me that BA flight attendants' strikes are useless when the person supposed to be looking out for passenger safety pulls **** like that. If I were a male flight attendant I'd be pissed that he put the public perception of their attitude right back to square one. He doesn't deserve to work with people again, let alone in a position where the safety of others is entrusted upon him.

Also dmr727, I hope those beers that you plan on enjoying with patrick0brien are after a flight

 

[rtb90]

Why is autoland so bad for the workload? Because pilots have to keep on monitoring glide slope, runway, etc to make sure everything is working?

Autoland is tough because you have to ensure the aircraft is in the proper landing position, with the disadvantage of minimal visibility and rapid speed. (Think about driving down the interstate at 100 MPH in massive fog) Also consider the fact that as you get closer to landing the tolerance for error narrows dramatically as do the tolerances for the approach. So although the computer does the grunt work the pilots have to make rapid decisions to ensure the computer is working correctly. The consequences for error are grave.

 

[dmr727]

Why is autoland so bad for the workload? Because pilots have to keep on monitoring glide slope, runway, etc to make sure everything is working?

Hopefully they're doing all those things anyway! My wife told me that this is a question best answered by showing you the difference between the checklists and callouts for a regular ILS approach and one terminating with an autoland. Supposedly the autoland checklist requires many more steps and calls. Once she gets back I'll PM you the relevant checklists for her aircraft.

But I do wonder just how far into the future we will have to go before planes fly with no flesh and blood pilots at all!

I have no idea. Even if the technology isn't the problem - you have to deal with how much it'll cost to implement it, who will pay for the ground up overhaul of the infrastructure, and so on. It's not a whole lot different than the idea of removing drivers from cars. I can buy a Lexus that parks itself. I once drove a Mercedes Maybach where the cruise control speeds up and slows down based on the pace of the car in front of me. If the car in front stops, it will too. But the technology really isn't the hard part - it's the complete overhaul of the existing system to make it happen, and making it make sense from a financial perspective. What do you gain financially from doing it, and does that offset the cost of implementing it? Only until that question is a definitive 'yes' will we see it.

I do know a couple of things, though. For one, we have yet to build a civilian aircraft where the automation doesn't muck things up on a regular basis, requiring the pilots to intervene and do it themselves. We can also talk about autoland, ILS, and so on - but we're not talking about anything that didn't exist almost 50 years ago. The first autoland from an ILS happened in 1964. And as sushi said, we still have yet to deal with the cases where things don't happen as planned.

So who knows? Obviously I'm biased, but I'm pretty confident that it won't happen during my lifetime. If anything, there's been a push to require more from the existing two person crew, rather than less.

Also dmr727, I hope those beers that you plan on enjoying with patrick0brien are after a flight

Don't worry - it always is!

 

[NightFox]

Surely most military fast jets are single-crewed though? So if that's possible, why couldn't it be carried over to commercial airliners? Yes, I know that two is better than one, but you have to draw the line somewhere based on risk, or you could argue that three is better than two and so on.

And I know there are examples of two crew members managing to bring down a stricken aircraft, but extreme cases aren't always justification in themselves, there's always something to balance the consideration against. I know that sounds very cold and clinical, but that's the position from where these decisions have to be made. Weren't similar arguments made when flight engineers disappeared from the flight deck?

Not saying I agree with what's being proposed, just questioning why it couldn't happen at least in principal.

 

[sushi]

Surely most military fast jets are single-crewed though? So if that's possible, why couldn't it be carried over to commercial airliners? Yes, I know that two is better than one, but you have to draw the line somewhere based on risk, or you could argue that three is better than two and so on.

Something to consider:

• With a military single seat fighter plane, you will only loose one pilot in a single incident.
  
• Whereas with a commercial plane, there is the risk that you will loose many individuals (crew and passengers) in a single incident.

My wife told me that this is a question best answered by showing you the difference between the checklists and callouts for a regular ILS approach and one terminating with an autoland.

If possible to post here, that would be wonderful just to see the comparison in length of the two checklists.

 

[NightFox]

Something to consider:

• With a military single seat fighter plane, you will only loose one pilot in a single incident.
  
• Whereas with a commercial plane, there is the risk that you will loose many individuals (crew and passengers) in a single incident.

Yes, but don't the same two pilot requirements also apply to freight aircraft? Besides, although it hasn't happened, I imagine a crash of a fully loaded fast jet bomber could lead to similar loss of life.

I'll freely admit that I speak from a position of total ignorance on this, but isn't this just one of those legacy requirements that will ultimately disappear, and it's just a matter of time?

Another way of looking at it, if there had only ever been one pilot in the cockpit, would there at any time in the last 20 years have been strong calls for a co-pilot to be introduced?

 

[dmr727]

If possible to post here, that would be wonderful just to see the comparison in length of the two checklists.

I'll have to ask her, but I don't see why not.

Yes, but don't the same two pilot requirements also apply to freight aircraft? Besides, although it hasn't happened, I imagine a crash of a fully loaded fast jet bomber could lead to similar loss of life.

As far as I know, the bombers are all crewed with two. sushi would know more about this, though. As far as freight, yes they do. The requirements are tied to the aircraft's type certificate, not the kind of operation it's involved in. For example, freight 727s still carry a Flight Engineer.

Another way of looking at it, if there had only ever been one pilot in the cockpit, would there at any time in the last 20 years have been strong calls for a co-pilot to be introduced?

Based on how the media and public have reacted to past accidents, I bet there would be. In fact, in the US, the Q400 accident in Buffalo has caused a push to require more experience and training from the First Officers. The problem is that anytime a plane crashes, there's a good chance it's because the crew made a mistake. So for a crash with a one person crew, there'll always be the question - would this mistake have been caught with another set of eyes?

There are civilian business jets being flown single pilot, and the fatal accident rate is several times higher than the same planes crewed with two, but it's not a particularly good comparison, as the single pilot jets are many times being flown by owners, not professionals. The other key here is insurance - the premiums are much higher for single pilot operations, and it's usually cheaper to simply hire an F/O.

I do think you're right that we'll eventually get to a point where there's only one pilot up there. As for a timeline - I couldn't even guess, although I doubt it'll be in our lifetime. If the past is any indicator - it won't be the kind of thing where they modify the type certificates for existing aircraft - it'll be a whole new airliner certified for single pilot operations. I think the first step towards that is a ground up redesign and implementation of the worldwide air traffic control infrastructure - which is a huge, huge task.

 

[quagmire]

Surely most military fast jets are single-crewed though? So if that's possible, why couldn't it be carried over to commercial airliners? Yes, I know that two is better than one, but you have to draw the line somewhere based on risk, or you could argue that three is better than two and so on.

Something to consider with fighter jets.... If something goes wrong, they have a magic handle in the cockpit that ditches the canopy and rockets go off that blasts the seat out of the plane and a parachute deploys to safely guide the pilot to the ground.

Something airliners don't have for the pilots, crew, and passengers.

 

[rtb90]

Originally Posted by NightFox
Surely most military fast jets are single-crewed though? So if that's possible, why couldn't it be carried over to commercial airliners? Yes, I know that two is better than one, but you have to draw the line somewhere based on risk, or you could argue that three is better than two and so on.

Have you thought about crew duty day limitations? Usually larger crews can have a longer crew duty day...at least that is how it works in the USAF.