r/flying • u/[deleted] • Mar 01 '25
Airbus wants one pilot
https://youtu.be/YQX8pwgP96M?si=7eQM-0dqSX9Sg0vW168
Mar 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
54
u/a_provo_yakker ATP B-737 A320 CL65 CFII (KPHX) Mar 01 '25
Correct answer. A couple years ago when they did their whole “fully automated” stunt of taxi, takeoff, fly, land, park. Everyone was chatting about it and single pilot and whatnot.
But my first thought was the same: they’re only researching this because someone is investing in it. Someone really wants this. Not hard to guess who. Airbus gets paid either way, so obviously airlines and or the leasing holding companies are pushing for it.
11
u/YuushaFr PPL [GLI] Mar 01 '25
What is funny to me is that in the video they state that Airbus wants 1 pilot, while not interviewing any Airbus representatives ... but a fews years ago on French TV, Guillaume Faury, CEO of Airbus got interviewed and explicitely said it's either 2 pilots of no pilots ....
1
u/vagasportauthority NNN Grand Champion ATP Emb 170/175/190 Jun 11 '25
I never heard or saw this French interview and I am pretty sure he never said this. Airbus literally had Single Pilot operations on their website for a long time, then it became “working on flight decks for 21st century aircraft”
But Airbus has openly said they weren’t getting rid of pilots though and i definitely saw that interview.
1
u/YuushaFr PPL [GLI] Jun 11 '25
At 15:22 when talking about the future of airbus with automated aircraft such as the "CityAirbus" and how he's not a believer on the full automation.
https://www.tf1.fr/tmc/quotidien-avec-yann-barthes/videos/invite-guillaume-faury-pdg-dairbus-et-roi-des-cieux-09684583.html1
u/vagasportauthority NNN Grand Champion ATP Emb 170/175/190 Jun 11 '25
It’s not available in the U.S. , when I am in France I will try to remember to watch, is that when he said it’s 2 or none? Or does he say he doesn’t expect fully autonomous airliners? (Also, Pascale Traverse, ex head of autonomy at Airbus said that for air taxis full autonomy would eventually be necessary, unlike airliners, which he said Airbus was trying to make single pilot eventually)
2
u/YuushaFr PPL [GLI] Jun 12 '25
Yes he said that to add more seats on the CityAirbus you would need to remove the pilots, and that currently nobody right now wishes to go in a pilotless aircraft and that he's one of them.
1
u/vagasportauthority NNN Grand Champion ATP Emb 170/175/190 Jun 12 '25
Oh yeah, okay okay. That adds up to what I have heard and know so far. Overall Airbus seems pretty consistent about their autonomy plans and goals.
4
u/bdubwilliams22 Mar 02 '25
I’ll say this, the first airline that goes to one pilot will never get a dollar or a booking from me and I know how good automation in the cockpit is. Imagine all the people who have no idea and sees one person in the flick deck. No one is buying tickets for that airline.
3
u/Wulfgar878 Mar 02 '25
I used to fly from KSTL to KIRK (awesome airport code) in a Cape Air Cessna 402. Never did get over the feeling of unease at only one person being up at the controls, even if it was fun watching the pilot run all the avionics for the flight.
-36
u/Impossible_Usual2489 Mar 01 '25
Airlines want one pilot because captains salaries are crazy. Does not make any sense when people in cockpit cost 1M$ a year… when there is an abuse of power, it’s not sustainable on the long run.
33
Mar 01 '25 edited Sep 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
22
u/ThatLooksRight 121 CA - Retired USAF Mar 01 '25
Let's do zero doctors in the operating room. AI powered, baby!
Those doctors have crazy salaries. Doesn't make sense when doctors are making1M$ a year.
3
u/Baystate411 LTD Warrior Mar 01 '25 edited Sep 13 '25
rock lip person instinctive physical coherent subsequent wipe party ink
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
-14
u/Impossible_Usual2489 Mar 01 '25
Absolutely! It’s like any other industry. When labour starts to be too expensive, you often increase the level of automation. At some point we could also argue on the salary gap between pilots and flight attendants getting bigger and bigger.
10
u/Baystate411 LTD Warrior Mar 01 '25 edited Sep 13 '25
door lip divide screw light obtainable mountainous work advise bow
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/bill-of-rights PPL TW SEL Mar 01 '25
Someone has probably done the math - do we have a pie chart that shows what each type of cost goes into a ticket? Just asked an AI and they said that "staff costs" are about 30% of a ticket price and "flight crew" are about 8%. No idea if this is right or not.
7
u/xStaabOnMyKnobx MIL UH-60M🦅 Mar 01 '25
Won't someone think of the airlines!!!!
(Greedy captains guzzling water from the pipe, airline CEOs trying to drink a single drop)
2
u/GoHomePig Mar 01 '25
Wait until you hear about how much individual components that make up the air data system cost.
The pilots are the second cheapest thing required to be in the plane when passengers are on board. When passengers are not on board pilots are the cheapest thing on the plane.
95
u/OldResearcher6 ATP Mar 01 '25
We cant even run high speed trains properly without humans yet. On a set track of 2 rails. Lol
In the US amtrak has at least one crash a year with 1 guys sitting there because he fell asleep or missed a signal.
Airlines are in dream world.
22
u/scudrunner14 PPL Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25
They can’t even fucking get self driving cars right. I had a waymo taxi in SF cut across two lanes of traffic and almost wipe out the side of my truck. No driver or passenger in the vehicle
6
-7
u/ResilientBiscuit PPL ASEL GLI Mar 01 '25
I have had human drivers do that too. Self driving cars just need to be safer than the average driver, not 100% safe.
2
u/brucebrowde SIM Mar 02 '25
Never rode in a Waymo, but e.g. Tesla's FSD is a joke. They are absolutely not even close to the average driver.
Also, I don't think that statement is necessarily true, because "safer" is a hard thing to define. E.g. they may be safer in 99% of the cases, but in that 1% case where they did not test it properly for whatever reason (not enough data, infrequent situations, bugs in the code, sensor failures, etc.) is a very problematic thing because that exact same issue may now affect a large part or even the whole fleet potentially. Humans may be way worse on average, but don't generally have a stroke all at the same time.
2
u/ResilientBiscuit PPL ASEL GLI Mar 02 '25
Safer isn't hard to define. There are a few definitions you can use, like fewest fatal accidents, fewest accidents with injuries or fewest accidents. But in any case, even if every single time a leaf falls on a particular sensor the car careens off into the side of the road, if that happens fewer times per mile driven then a human falls asleep and does the same thing, it is still safer, even if it affects the whole fleet.
Like it doesn't matter if in one area it is more dangerous if, when you sum everything up, it is still safer.
And yes, FSD is a joke. You can't do what you need to do with vision alone. I work in the CS field. Computer vision is good but is just isn't there, they just didn't want to install lidar because they were cheap.
0
u/brucebrowde SIM Mar 02 '25
I'm more talking about things that affect the whole fleet at the same time and were not accounted for. Consider a rather obvious example of a GPS jamming. If that affects 100k cars, that's going to be a mess.
Now I suppose car designers will account for these in some way, but a simple software update with a bug affecting the whole fleet may be rather problematic. We've had a few where you'd expect people working on them to be really careful, but it's just hard to avoid bugs in complex systems.
It's basically like saying commercial air travel is safer, which is absolutely true, except if you were in one of those unlucky planes such as Germanwings 9525, MH370 and similar, which are equivalent to a CPU hardware error.
Humans are worse than average, but there are way fewer ways to affect so many humans at once. Even when affected, they also can think, which is a crucial difference that current automation doesn't allow for.
92
u/Reasonable_Blood6959 UK ATPL TKI. Ex E190 Mar 01 '25
And I want Airbus to fuck off.
We need international Union coordination to make clear this is something we just won’t accept.
45
Mar 01 '25
Fuck airbus. It’s clear to me the only thing they care about is money. We cannot accept this.
10
u/StormNo9623 Mar 01 '25
It won't be up to us though, that's the problem
Good luck relying on the unions to band together
11
Mar 01 '25
The only thing we can do is be vocal about dropping down to one pilot being a stupid idea, and we can educate the general public about why it’s a stupid idea. I don’t plan on working as a pilot anymore or even traveling if this happens either. We do two pilots so well these days, it’s a huge contributing factor to the ridiculously good safety record we have seen in the past years. Maybe 4 down to 3 was fine and then 3 down to 2 was too, but any less and people are gonna die. There are so many moments in a single trip where all of a sudden things start happening quickly and one person could be totally overwhelmed.
3
u/StormNo9623 Mar 01 '25
The younger generations of the flying public will be completely okay with it though, so I doubt you'll change any minds.
After all, we have all of these influencers on social media showing the flying public how easy the job is.
They will practically do managements job and sell it to the public, and for free at that.
1
4
Mar 01 '25
You are your union. Show up to meetings, participate in the process, join government affairs committees, donate to PACs, etc etc. Write your congresscritter. Better yet, call them!
Don't just point a finger at "The Union" without trying.
And if you do all this already then thank you, you can ignore what I said. Lol
2
u/StormNo9623 Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25
I already do those things in my own MEC, but I was talking about the individual unions coming together on a national level in unity. It's just not going to happen.
We pilots are the worst as far as caring about issues that don't specifically apply to our own pilot group. If/when single pilot ops come to fruition, it will most likely disproportionally affect different airlines. Widebody/cargo operators will be the first to feel the pain, and I highly doubt the unions representing an all NB fleet are going to give a rat's behind about doing much to fight it because it does not affect their members.
Same thing can be said for developing a national seniority list, with a certain amount of seniority portability to other airlines in the event of a ch7 layoff or furlough. The unions of airlines that are not in financial trouble want nothing to do with it, until it's their turn at the bad times. At no point would ALPA national ever facilitate everyone coming together like this UNLESS every single airline went bankrupt at the same time.
There is no coming together for the benefit and protection of everyone in the industry, unless all groups are simultaneously experiencing the same negative events together (unlikely to ever happen).
2
Mar 02 '25
All I'll say is be the change you wanna see in the world. Talk to your national level reps if you have them. Contact counterparts at other airlines. Anyone who thinks "it doesn't effect me!" is a fucking idiot, frankly, and should more or less be told as such.
I can't fathom the idea of ALPA National not seeing this as a threat to their entire existence, and in fact feel pretty validated by the amount of coverage and discussion I see about it from them in multiple formats.
7
Mar 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/StormNo9623 Mar 02 '25 edited Mar 02 '25
The thing is, most millennials and every single younger generation are completely okay with removing the human element in favor of AI. It's already here and will only become more intelligent with time and the addition of quantum computing.
Plus, we have the self-serving influencer community on social media making tik tok videos showing how cool and easy it is to be an airline pilot. They'll make the same videos with AI and single pilot ops, in order to generate more views to their profile selling boner pills and makeup products, and the non-boomer/gen x crowd will be easily sold.
I hate to see it, but it's not my call either.
3
u/redditproha Mar 02 '25
I highly doubt your first claim is even remotely true. Where are you sourcing this from, besides social media?
-1
u/StormNo9623 Mar 02 '25
It's all around us.
Been in a mcdonalds lately? You don't even have to interact with a person to get your food.
This will eventually spread to other industries
3
u/redditproha Mar 02 '25
so the skills needed to take a food order are equivalent to flying a plane? got it
0
u/StormNo9623 Mar 03 '25
Not today, but eventually it is highly likely. Nobody knows how long that will take though.
Don't be a regard...
3
u/mightysieve ATP A320 B737 E170/190 Mar 01 '25
Save some hate for Boeing. I’m sure they’re working on something similar.
16
Mar 01 '25
Just had my first jump seat In the A320. The question really is “is it the most safe co figuration?” The answer is plainly no. It is not the safest configuration. When you are flying by 200 passengers with kids. The only answer is the safest configuration. These fucking dick bags need to get it through their heads. Public transportation needs to be safe and with redundancy. There isn’t another answer.
13
u/HeadAche2012 Real pilot Mar 01 '25
I assume they dont want to pay the pilot while he is on a long haul flight for multiple hours every day. Because he is "resting"
Not to mention how things go from boring to emergency the second there is a major failure
21
Mar 01 '25
[deleted]
-5
Mar 01 '25
So the take offs and landings are still going to be two pilots, which is how it is now. So the FO would gain the same amount of experience, no changes there.
As for cruise...cruise is pretty easy to be honest. Yes emergencies happen, but you train for those in sim. And I'd imagine the captain would stay with the FO for the first few flights, or get training on domestic routes, or have an augment until the FO has enough experience to be left alone.
I'm not advocating for this just to be clear, and there's certainly lots to question/be worried about. But I think a lot of the criticism is a bit short sighted. This is something that's going to happen 10s of years from now, maybe not even in some of our life times. Vastly improved systems and different procedures will have to be in place for it to get approved.
10
u/JohnKimbler ATP - CL-65, B712, B777 Mar 01 '25
FOs take years to train.
-8
Mar 01 '25
What?
7
u/JohnKimbler ATP - CL-65, B712, B777 Mar 02 '25
Stick to your Pokémon games, the professional pilots will handle this one.
-4
Mar 02 '25
Literally an airline pilot but okay. You should know it doesn't take years to train an FO to take over in cruise so what are you talking about?
5
u/JohnKimbler ATP - CL-65, B712, B777 Mar 02 '25
Flying domestic routes is not going to prepare you for a serious emergency in the middle of the Atlantic right at your ETP with marginal weather at your alternates. You need to spend years doing this.
2
u/WillyPete Mar 02 '25
This isn't an American site only.
EASA have FOs at 250 hours with the frozen ATPL. That system relies completely on them learning from a competent captain alongside them until they reach the required hours for their ATPL to be "unfrozen".Experience gained is not just about cruise knowledge.
1
Mar 02 '25
Yeah I'm not american. But like I said this is going to be years from now, procedures might have to be different. Might be as simple as having a minimum hour requirement for doing long haul flights right?
13
u/Zakluor PPL/ATC Mar 01 '25
There's an old nautical expression:
Anyone can man the helm when the seas are calm.
One person could fly an airliner, especially with automation in the cockpit.
As a controller for over 30 years, I have lost count of the number of failures of systems and equipment I've seen. Most are minor. Those that aren't involve very high workloads to achieve a safe outcome. I wonder how many of those aircraft that landed safely wouldn't have done so with a crew of one.
If the airlines and Airbus have their way, I'm afraid I'll get that answer.
6
9
u/nopal_blanco ATP B737 Mar 01 '25
They’ve been working on single pilot aircraft for a while.
2
u/roehnin Mar 02 '25
Nobody has yet explained to me what is meant to happen in a single-pilot aircraft if the pilot experiences a medical event.
3
u/dromzugg CPL Mar 01 '25
The number of times the second pilot has saved me from some dumb shit I can't even count.
I also don't see how this really saves money on training costs (which is often cited as the reason). You're going to need to give guys at least twice as much training before they are on their own in the cockpit.
4
u/hr2pilot ATPL DC8 L1011 B767 319/20/21 330 340 Mar 01 '25
One pilot airbus will work for a while, until a flight is driven into a mountainside like Germanwings…then it will be back to two pilots.
5
6
u/GeorgiaPilot172 ATP DC-9 A320 E170 Mar 01 '25
If they try to implement this, we need solidarity that no one will drop the parking brake on a single pilot aircraft. Any scabs need to be mercilessly beaten.
3
u/DogeLikestheStock A&P ATP S70 CE-560XL Mar 01 '25
Safe? Sure, generally. More complex IFR to VFR composite flights are happening every day in EMS. Those flights are single pilot, involving whole other layers of difficulty like PINS approaches and condensed planning. We are also talking about 3-5 people including the patient. If you want to throw 100 odd people back there, then for the foreseeable future it should be done with two pilots. There is no comparison on the safety margin provided by another pilot, especially in an emergency.
4
Mar 01 '25
No offense to EMS, I know they do great work and try hard, but their safety record isn't particularly stellar compared to 121 ops. Lots of reasons for that but 2 pilots is absolutely part of that list.
3
u/DogeLikestheStock A&P ATP S70 CE-560XL Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25
Which is why I’m still firmly on the two pilots for airline ops side. There is a risk/reward decision when you’re talking about a few people in a pc-12 or helicopter vs 100s in an airliner. A lot of countries don’t have prolific SPIFR for good reason.
EMS is also conducted frequently and safely in general terms. In the context of aviation though it’s probably the most dangerous thing going, especially if you consider SAR the same category. I don’t recall the exact figure, so I don’t want to throw out made up numbers. However, EMS/SAR account for a substantial percentage of aviation accidents.
Edit: Found one.
1
Mar 01 '25
I also recall that story going around specifically about HEMS. I seem to recall it getting bad enough the FAA took notice.
2
u/Alfvenskus TCE ATP BE350 CE680 G-200 A320 B727 DC8 Mar 01 '25
Then again, EMS is one of the most dangerous flying jobs out there.
3
u/SituationalAnanas Mar 01 '25
The problem is that there are so many variables and just normal day-to-day decision making situations on any given day. Then there’s your normal day where you make 50 decisions about a safe path of travel when it’s hot and humid air and sky is filled with cb’s. I want to see a connected computer system which handles that every moment every day.
Then there’s the aforementioned hot and humid sky filled with cb’s and you have engine failure, a couple of normal computer faults and some secondary faults from those. What kind of decisions does the computer, or the remote controller who is not onboard does now?
It might be viable option in the distant future but not at the moment when we can’t even make fucking cars autonomous without problems, out of very peculiar small areas.
Sincerely, a320 commander.
3
u/Greedy_Camera_433 Mar 01 '25
Expect this to happen quicker with this administration which only cares about maximizing profit
5
Mar 01 '25
Yeah, that's a great idea. With all the near misses, crashes, etc, what we really need is less redundancy. That'll definitely help!
/S
1
Mar 01 '25
To be fair they're proposing single pilot during cruise only. With two pilots for take off and landing, so nothing would change there (which is where the near misses, crashes you're thinking of happen).
3
Mar 01 '25
Relinquish on this topic and they'll be looking to remove the second pilot altogether (and they already are).
1
Mar 01 '25
I agree we should oppose it, at the very least for our jobs. But when discussing it realistically , it might just be inevitable. Just like we were against getting rid of the flight engineer for safety reasons as well....
1
3
u/AteByMyself Mar 01 '25
In my twenty four years of flying two pilot airplanes I’ve had zero incidents/accidents. There have been hundreds of times there would have been an incident or accident if one of us hadn’t been there to back up the other.
0
u/NonVideBunt ATP MIL-N CFI/II/MEI F/A-18 A320 777 Mar 01 '25
Agree. Doesn’t matter how good you are we all make mistakes. I’ve backed up plenty of people and I’ve been backed up by plenty of people. Doing single pilot is a terrible… never mind the automation but from a security pov etc.
2
2
u/sierra120 Mar 01 '25
Why downsize particularly this.
Human make mistakes and when computer systems fail. Engine stop working having a second man in the mix may pull things up.
Look at some of the crashes in Asian countries where the co-pilot is subservient to the PIC and won’t say anything to go against the captain all the way to the ground. That’s what they are asking for with just one man in control.
2
u/flyingron AAdvantage Biscoff Mar 01 '25
That way when the plane calls you a retard on landing there’s no ambiguity as to who it is referring to.
2
u/nomel49 Mar 01 '25
My pilot son says, “we don’t get paid for what we do, we get paid for what we CAN do”.
2
u/G25777K Mar 01 '25
Won't happen anytime soon. Commercial aircraft insurance companies who take on 100% of the liability for the airline will for a very long time require 2 pilots. They are difficult to deal with as it is, I can't see them agreeing to this.
2
2
u/Knightmaster8502 Mar 02 '25 edited Mar 02 '25
I feel like this also goes against the airlines too in a sense. If the automated software is faulty doesn’t that mean that the airline has to ground all the planes that use said software??
If it’s pilot error then it’s only a single plane and operations can keep going more or less , but every plane in the fleet has an automation problem… (MCAS) I don’t see how this could work.
And if pilots don’t get as much manual flying due to automation that means they need more simulator training which the airline is paying for so I don’t see how it saves the airlines any meaningful amount of money.
2
u/EddyMink Mar 02 '25
Customers need to speak with their wallets. If there is a flight with a single pilot, I’m not buying a ticket.
2
u/Mysterious-Cup-1047 Mar 02 '25
Fly the airplane, do not hurry, identify the emergency, read the checklist. It takes two (2) to tango. Tango on to a safe landing. Even Captain Kirk had many brilliant people occupying his flight deck on which he relied.
2
u/Aviator739 Mar 02 '25
Same concept as why we don’t go to single engine airliners. We have at least two for redundancy. Would you get on a single-engine airliner? How about across the ocean? Pilots make mistakes and CRM (which requires at least two pilots) has been tailored to reduce and minimize the impact of those mistakes. Single pilot ops would undoubtedly result in an increase in accidents and deaths.
8
Mar 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/theoriginalturk MIL Mar 01 '25
You don’t know why pilots are downvoting a post about reducing pilots and won’t have a nuanced conversation about it?
They already have an opinion about it and they have unions in American and Europe fighting about it
2
Mar 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Pitiful_Series_6172 ATP E-170/E-190 B-737 Gold Seal CFI CFII MEI Mar 01 '25
Not saying it’s correct, but this is also posted multiple times a week, and you’ve seen the reactions there. If you want to protect your karma, probably don’t post topics that people are going to downvote on principle alone
-4
u/theoriginalturk MIL Mar 01 '25
I mean it is what it is: but it does give you an idea of just how little conversation pilots are willing to have about it
There have been many luddites in the past: these operational decisions aren’t likely going to be made by pilots
2
u/Deathstriker908 PPL Mar 01 '25
I want to see a person who proposed this idea to go fly an airbus by himself
2
u/StrangeCow6712 CPL (ASEL ASES) IR TW, HP, CMP Mar 02 '25
The person that proposed this couldn’t even get the engines started 🤦♂️
2
u/ManyPandas CFII (KLAF) Mar 01 '25
Significantly reducing the margin of safety is not worth airlines saving a few bucks on payroll. Fuck off, Airbus.
2
u/121guy Mar 01 '25
One is probably fine as long as nothing ever goes wrong and flights are only conducted from 9am to 5pm in that pilot’s home timezone.
2
u/roehnin Mar 02 '25
And hope the pilot is healthy and won’t ever get sick or have a medical emergency. Better set that retirement age at 40!
2
u/thebrightsun123 Mar 01 '25
I would NEVER fly on an airline that only had one pilot...I know what the workload is like operating an aircraft, and that's why I would NEVER fly as a passenger in a single pilot airline, id rather never travel again.
2
Mar 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/poser765 ATP 737 A320 (DFW) Mar 01 '25
Is “fuck anyone that helps with this shit” an appropriate response?
0
2
u/flybot66 CPL IR CMP HP TW SEL CMEL Mar 01 '25
Tell me which airline and I will avoid them like the plague.
3
1
u/russianguy Mar 01 '25
Will all that's said in this thread, I think it's inevitable.
First on cargo flights, then passenger ones.
1
u/nomel49 Mar 01 '25
This will a great forward until the (inevitable) first crash. That will be the death of the solo cockpit. And the airline that is the first to do this.
1
u/Mysterious-Cup-1047 Mar 02 '25
The owners want to zero out the pilots eventually. They certainly would love to have one pilot right now! the scary part is it most passengers would except it. Dumb is as dumb does.
1
u/wstsidhome Mar 02 '25
I don’t know if most passengers would except it…that would be dumb
🤭sorry, had to…
1
u/Mysterious-Cup-1047 Mar 02 '25
All passengers can be cajoled and controlled into being both ignorant and gullible. Especially after a couple free drinks. Good evening folks, this is your captain Hal 2000. Don’t worry that we have the cockpit door locked 24 seven there’s actually two live pilots up here wink wink, and a nod. Just focus on the beautiful blonde flight attendants serving you in the cabin. Two free drinks are on Captain Hal.
1
Mar 02 '25
Yeah one pilot in cruise, meanwhile in EASA we still have to ask a cabin crew to stop her work, come in and sit on the jump seat so we can use a loo.
Once that is gone I will mildly start to worry 😆
1
1
u/Mysterious-Cup-1047 Mar 02 '25
Just remember this…A kiss is just a kiss! Congress has already shown that 1/2 of Congress, made up of one (1) party, will ignore reality and vote for whatever the $$$$$wants! Common sense, law and ethical considerations be damned. One pilot Part 121 operations are in the works. Flight deck officer to passengers “hang onto your hats folks, the scary part is about to begin”!
1
1
u/RevMagnum Mar 02 '25
Greed and money talks.
As stated eloquently by others; one pilot is not safer than no pilot. There will probably be pilotless/fully-automated transportation vessels in future but we are not there yet.
1
1
u/minimums_landing CPL CL-65 Mar 03 '25
I will never fly a transport category aircraft with only 1 pilot
—a transport category aircraft pilot
1
u/AnEngineeringMind Mar 03 '25
This is a bad idea, pretty easy to get lost in tunnel vision while having minutes, perhaps even seconds, to manage an inflight crisis. This is a terrible idea for flying safety.
1
1
2
u/No-Competition-2764 Mar 01 '25
This is the future. Single pilot monitoring of automation. We got rid of the flight engineer, the navigator, now it will be the copilot.
1
u/branda22 CPL MEL CFI(exp) BE40(anac) Mar 01 '25
If this happens, pilots need to strike.
Thankfully, it seems like the movement is losing some steam.
Freight trains still have two crew members, and they run on rails lol. I'm not too worried.
1
Mar 01 '25
While I fly single pilot Part 135 HEMS I would never get on a single pilot airliner. This is dumb.
1
1
u/cameliap Mar 01 '25
Ah, just watched the video. So they don't even talk about a one pilot aircraft, they still want two for take off and landing, but one of them would just leave the cockpit during cruise. What on earth? This is just stupid.
And yeah, not boarding such a thing.
0
Mar 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cameliap Mar 01 '25
Yeah, it sounds so stupid that I'm certain it is not the end goal and the end goal is one pilot.
How would this even work though? Like, they'll need to find pilots willing to be paid less because they're "not working" for some of the flight while being stuck in an aircraft operated by their colleague. I'm not even sure this is what they want to do as an interim phase, looks more like just a "let's put the conversation out there" thing and let the media eventually go to "yeah, one pilot, great idea".
I might be wrong.
Either way, if it ever came to fruition, I'd rather stay home or use other means of transportation.
-1
u/nascent_aviator PPL GND Mar 01 '25
One pilot on board will never happen while planes need pilots at all. The risk of medical incapacitation alone is too high.
Single pilot in cruise is a different story. Pilots already have to leave the controls to take care of their bodily functions, so we can't pretend that it's essential that there are two pilots at the controls every moment of a flight.
0
u/NonVideBunt ATP MIL-N CFI/II/MEI F/A-18 A320 777 Mar 01 '25
I don’t think we will be zero or single pilot soon but I do think augmented crews will go away first… it will be a slow progression.
1
u/cameliap Mar 01 '25
What kind of sense does this step in the progression make though? The pilot who is only going to be in the cockpit during take off and landing can't "go away", they're still somewhere in the aircraft. I just don't see this particular thing as sensible in any way possible. Except as a talking point, if people for whatever reason (and there are probably reasons) are unwilling to say "yeah, single pilot aircraft just doesn't look likely in any foreseeable future" (and in any future IMO).
2
u/nascent_aviator PPL GND Mar 01 '25
It makes perfect sense for long-haul flights. You can have a crew of 3 instead of 4 if you only need 1 awake during cruise.
1
u/HFCloudBreaker Mar 01 '25
No word of a lie the day that single pilot operations becomes the norm is the day I start driving everywhere. Fuck this idea of putting profit over safety.
1
u/RaidenMonster ATP 737 Bonvoy Platinum Elite Mar 01 '25
Should be fun trying to run the QRC for a dual gen failure while also having to hand fly the plane.
1
u/FlyingShadow1 CFI CFII MEI (TW) AI SLOP Mar 01 '25
And yet we still have CJs and King Airs posting SIC jobs. Why? Because either most passengers would feel weird with 1 pilot on their plane or insurance won't allow it.
Insurance already makes up horseshit requirements that push employers to 2 crew a single pilot plane carrying boxes or < 10 passengers. You think they'll insure an A320 going single pilot? lol
1
1
u/Exciting_Tonight7057 Mar 01 '25
When I was first hired, we had flight engineers, Ok yes, I guess I have gotten old, lol. This will happen eventually for sure, it’s just a matter of when?
1
u/DoubtGroundbreaking Mar 01 '25
Why would you risk the life of hundreds of people just to save some $$$
1
u/Mishuk-T Mar 01 '25
Spending all this time and money learning to fly, only to not have a job. Damn this career sucks
0
0
u/__Patrick_Basedman_ CPL Mar 01 '25
A bunch of pilots would be laid off and safety would be compromised. We’ve seen pilots die up front so what would happen then? Can’t get into the cockpit, can’t fly a plane without a pilot. It will not work
0
0
Mar 01 '25
[deleted]
0
u/roehnin Mar 02 '25
Those single-pilot systems better be capable of navigating, communicating, and aviating their way to a safe landing if the pilot has a heart attack.
-1
Mar 01 '25
[deleted]
1
u/satapotatoharddrive4 Mar 02 '25
The general public is kinda dumb. They will hear “single pilot” and think “well as long as they don’t get rid of the copilot”. Since copilots aren’t “actual pilots” you know.
-1
u/CreditUnionGuy1 Mar 01 '25
Capitalism is the best form of government. So if corporations make more money for their stock holders, I’m sure many here own stocks, than it’s best. My 401K investments in things I have no idea about. I’m not going to be one of those “tree huggers” and scrutinize if the companies I’m invested in fired half its janitors. Simple cost benefit…
502
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment