I know of someone who's parent paid for them to do the training to become an airline pilot. It's simply out of reach of someone who doesn't have a well paid job already or who has access to the bank of mum and dad.

The airlines could try paying to train up pilots instead of expecting them to pay for their training themselves.... Then there wouldn't be a shortage of crew.

One problem is that recent(ish) US rule changes require a pilot to have 1500 hours *before* he can even sit in the co-pilot's chair, in spite of evidence suggesting that things have got worse, not better: in Europe you spend most of those 1500 hours actually doing the job, not e.g. crop dusting or even as pilot instructors. That means there simply aren't any pilots available, hence the airlines pushing the plane designers for more automation.

Mentour did a recent Youtube in which he discussed this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l83d_z3GPeo

I agree; a better system would be one in which there is a training scheme within the airline - it would require something to keep the pilots once they are qualified, of course - but the US system makes it illegal.

Personally, I look upon one-pilot schemes with disfavour and would be unlikely to fly if I knew it was happening; I would definitely not fly a no-pilot plane... I don't travel in anything if there isn't a driver with skin in the game (minor automated train systems excepted).

Pilot redundancy is one of the basic flight safety rules. FOR GOOD REASON.

The number of planes that have fallen from the sky due to system malfunction is staggering. Removing a trained human and replacing it with a machine is moronic. It does not improve safety.

They can't make robot cars work on roads yet and they want to try it at 30,000 feet with 300+ souls on board.

https://aviation.globalincidentmap.com/

Most airlines will sponsor candidates once they have demonstrated a significant amount of proficiency, but it tends to be as a loan against future earnings with a future job in the airline. Getting a CPL is hundreds of thousands of dollars so not something most can do even with "the bank of mum and dad". Most candidates will have a bursary of some kind from a future employer (not always a passenger airline). Students can be forced to drop out for medical reasons outside their control) so it's an expensive risk for an airline to sponsor a student that then drops out.

Flying a plane is not something that everyone can do with enough training, getting your PPL is a financial commitment similar to going to university for 3 years. Once you have a ppl you can get CPL sponsorship if your exam grades are good enough.

Perhaps it is a common misconception, but I was under the impression that human pilot decisions had caused far more crashes and fatalities than machine pilot ones, despite the 737 Max catastrophes. Perhaps the safest option is no flight crew at all.

No, the safest option is to not fly at all. Which also improves the CO2 emissions. There, problem solved.

And while we're at it, we could go living in caves.

Whilst that is true in normal operation, in the event of plane malfunction, the opposite is the case. Autopilot cannot cope, and simply offloads to the pilot to make the decisions, usually just with an alarm going off that it has just done so after the event.

A month ago Mentour Pilot and Tom Scot did a collab video where Mentour Pilot Petter Hörnfeldt talked not-a-pilot Scot through landing a 737 twice, once using auto pilot and then manually with hands on stick. Hörnfeldt only had access to the radio, and the same data air traffic controllers on the ground see. The results were interesting, if predictable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbTDzPUDxqY

In the air, a "Stop at all costs" policy in the event of malfunction like is seen (theoretically) in automated cars, wouldn't really work, unless you want planes to plummet from the sky. Quite how you would train an AI to solve the Trolly Problem in the air, or even to choose the least destructive method of getting down on the ground I wouldn't know.

Yeah, thats what I thought - that pilot error was a leading cause of incidents.

I will be comfortable with a single pilot plane, especially if the backup is someone who can remotely control from the ground in case the pilot is unable to control the plane for whatever reasons.

Maybe a few ground based control stations scattered around the globe with pilots on standby to take control in an emergency will be a much cheaper option and not negate the safety aspects much.

> I will be comfortable with a single pilot plane, especially if the backup [involves a computer]

No.

-> if the backup is someone who can remotely control from the ground

With what kind of security? What kind of anti-jam system would it use?

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers" -- Bob Monkhouse

As I recall there have been other cases historically like the German Wings horror. At least two in the cockpit at all times, thank you.

Used to be human error, but lately the technology is getting so complex a frozen pitot tube will bring down a jet.

Imagine a machine autopilot during the double engine flameout on US Airways 1549 that ended up in the Hudson River.

Sully Sullenberger and Jeff Skiles saved everyone by thinking laterally and making choices no machine would ever make.

Many accidents where pilot error is the cause were precipitated by errors in monitoring or automation that were then mishandled by the pilots.

So if there is no pilot you do remove one of the last lines of defence.

There are probably many incidents where the automation went crazy and the pilots just handled it as they were trained and so we never hear about it.

That said there is a rule against having one person in the cockpit because of the spate of murdercides. So who is going to be there to make sure the one pilot does not intentionally crash the plane?

I suspect that a major reason for so many crashes being put down to Pilot Error is that the pilot is dead and anyway cannot afford the legal team to go against the army deployed by airlines or manufacturers to scapegoat them.

Well Muskie's fixed Tesla, fixed SpaceX, fixed Twitter, now what else is there to do?...

"This is Captain Clarence Oveur. Hope you're enjoying Musk Air flight 767. I'm a little busy at the moment... please leave your message after the tone and I'll get back to you"

terrible straw man.

you'll be blaming conservatives next.

If you work in a shop or an office it is required by law for there to be two people in case the other one has an accident or emergency. Now I try to imagine the same shop or work place carrying 100's of people and hurtling through the sky at great speed that could potentially crash land anywhere because the one person that can land it safely is no longer available. What could possibly go wrong?

You could argue well if they can do automatic landings then it's not a problem. I won't trust a computer to drive a car and I'm certainly not trusting a computer to land a plane I'm on that could hit any number of variables. Next you could say drone pilot or remote control. Makes sense except drone pilots fly these tiny little planes so I'm also certainly not trusting someone miles away using whatever communication system that can't feel the plane and adjust.

You can do it trains sure. It's on a track it'll just stop and so will all the trains behind. (Obviously doesn't always happen but the % is very very low)

It's madness I tells ya and all to try and save money... I hope someone has some common sense and tells to jog on.

When you say things like 'required by law', you kind of have to specify which law, where. I've never experienced such a law anywhere I've worked, whether due to lack of such a law or lack of enforcement, I know not. But don't just assume that that goes for everyone.

ETA: The use of 'jog on' suggests you're British. I've only worked remotely in (from) the UK, which would explain why I haven't noticed that law/regulation. In the US, I've been alone in shop/office plenty of times, and I'm pretty sure there's no law/regulation/rule against it there.

-> If you work in a shop or an office it is required by law for there to be two people in case the other one has an accident or emergency

It is not. You have repeated a widely-held but wrong belief.

Employers ARE required to assess the risk to lone employees (as they are with other employees). If the risk to the lone employee is deemed unsafe just by them being alone then the usual remedy is to have another employee present.

There may be circumstances or types of jobs which always require more than one person present purely for safety reasons.

There are 2 Pilots for similar reasons like why there are 2 engines, design diversity for FADEC, Autopilot and other critical systems etc.

They say its cheaper to have several computing devices than a human but those finances will turn on their head once the public stop flying those airlines.

if £150k for a meat sack is too much for an airline to afford then they shouldn't be in the airline business.

But that only applies to planes above a certain number of passengers.

The single engined float planes that take off from the water in a busy city center, surrounded by high buildings, mountains, suspension bridges, in an uncontrolled airspace full of private pilots, police/news/medic helicopters - these only need one pilot because they have < 15 seats.

I suppose this is much easier flying job than taking a 737 from one Cat5 airport to another Cat5 airport.

Before the public stop flying there will be loads of lawsuits.

Training the pilots might be cheaper.

The requirements for a full flying license are also incredibly onerous, which creates a bottleneck in the supply for qualified pilots. For most European airlines, you need 1,500 hours flight time before you get a full license. Until then, you're on provisional terms and need a fully qualified pilot operating alongside you .

So coming up with a solution which eliminates the primary training opportunity (ie co-piloting) is the way to train more pilots?

I don't think they are interested in training more pilots. They are interested in cutting costs at all costs. Training pilots is someone else's problem.

And of course far better from the company's point of view for liability: if they trained the pilot and he screws up, it's their fault; if someone else trained him then 'Well, he was qualified, guv!'.

Rameses, the US has already come up with that solution; see my post above.

Train the co-pilot to also be able to push a drinks trolley and advertise scratch cards. That way they can be in the cockpit for the critical phases of flight, but in the cabin for the cruise phase. If an emergency were to happen in cruise, (s)he's just got to get through the door and can get back to being a (co-)pilot.

Simples.

The requirement for two pilots in the cockpit has always had an over-riding psychological component which no amount of automation can provide. The pilot simply must have someone, another expert---physically present---to talk to; to discuss---among the more trivial topics---life-and-death situations.

Of course, since there's a way to insert a computer/computers into this argument/equation, the 'Single-Pilot' scenario will eventually win out, much as did Boeing's ability to completely design a brand-new aircraft, using ONLY software , and convince (would "...pull the wool over their eyes..." be not strong enough?) the powers-that-be that this approach is perfectly fine; that nothing could possibly go wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you think that single-pilot General Aviation crashes are so common?

For the same reason that motorbike accidents by young men on the road are so common?

Using the experience from our car division, we are just *months* away from a full, self-flying aircraft. Just as soon as I've sorted out Twitter.

Elon Musk

Not sure about this. Look at QF32. 4 pilots on board. 2 normal crew, a check pilot and a check check pilot. Possibly one of the most experienced crews in aviation history.

Even then, the workload was intense. With only one pilot this could have ended very differently.

A poster child for why we need very tough Corporate Manslaughter laws with the punishments at the top levels of the corporation.

This is possibly the most stupidly self-destructive and dangerous idea I've ever read.

Sure, a single pilot can fly the sector when everything is going perfectly.

But when something goes wrong, if there's only one pilot, everybody dies a lot of the time.

"Pilot error" almost always means "lost situational awareness". Piling on a greater workload makes that far more likely.

Just read the AAIB reports for "recreational" pilots.

Then there will be even fewer pilots, although I suppose that won't be a major problem because nobody will want to fly at all.

-> There are two obvious drivers for the proposal – cost cutting and crew shortages

No. It's just cost cutting. It is nothing else. Don't be fooled or misled.

Three basic rules of flying an airplane (in this order):

1. Aviate - keep the thing up in the air and under your control

2. Navigate - determine where you are, and where you are going

3. Communicate - tell traffic control/others what you are doing/going to do

For 1 and 2, modern systems are great help, and in most cases better equipped to do the job then you are.

But if one of these systems goes astray for whatever reason, it is all up to that single pilot in the front seat.

Multiple pilots can divide 1 till 3 among them in emergencies, making them focused on the job, which is saving the lives of themselves and everybody behind them,

And emergencies WILL happen.

With only one pilot what you have is a single point of failure, it is one of the reasons the pilot and the co-pilot generally do not eat the same food.

Pilots and co-pilots are advised not to eat the same meals when they are working. If something is wrong with the meal (like food poisoning), the other pilot will not be affected and can take over. The rule is not mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, but most airlines have their own rules about it,/quote>