Will computers replace pilots?

[SrFnFly227]

What will be particularly interesting is whether the corporate manufacturers attempt to get single pilot certification for new airframes based on the capabilities of the software/avionics. If we see a G750 Single Pilot type rating become an option then the writing's on the wall.

I don't think you'll ever see a single pilot Gulfstream. The plane is designed to fly for entirely too long for only one person to sit up front with no ability to get up and stretch or relieve a biological need.

You will however see more and more mid size and below aircraft certified to be single pilot. The Phenom 100/300 is one example. The Citation Mustang and M2 are of course two more examples, but Cessna has a pretty long history of single pilot waivers for their planes.

Getting around the biological needs of one person will be a large hurdle IMO. In the airline world, you make a dispatcher capable of taking over the plane for short periods of time. One dispatcher could handle multiple planes, the same way they do now. In the private world however, where true dispatchers/flight followers are a rarity, there is a problem for single pilot ops once you get past a 2-3 hour range.

 

[Inverted25]

I don't think you'll ever see a single pilot Gulfstream. The plane is designed to fly for entirely too long for only one person to sit up front with no ability to get up and stretch or relieve a biological need.

You will however see more and more mid size and below aircraft certified to be single pilot. The Phenom 100/300 is one example. The Citation Mustang and M2 are of course two more examples, but Cessna has a pretty long history of single pilot waivers for their planes.

Getting around the biological needs of one person will be a large hurdle IMO. In the airline world, you make a dispatcher capable of taking over the plane for short periods of time. One dispatcher could handle multiple planes, the same way they do now. In the private world however, where true dispatchers/flight followers are a rarity, there is a problem for single pilot ops once you get past a 2-3 hour range.

The phenom 300 is a good example yet everyone I have ever seen had two pilots? Doesn't seem like owners are that eager to save a few bucks even though the option exist

 

[SrFnFly227]

The phenom 300 is a good example yet everyone I have ever seen had two pilots? Doesn't seem like owners are that eager to save a few bucks even though the option exist

There are people flying the 300 single pilot, but it generally isn't an owner operator. The airplane is nearly double the cost than the 100 and it is a different type rating than the 100. It is also apparently completely different when it comes to performance. Another thing would be that most of the operators of the airplane are using it for charter and most, if not all, of those will require 2 pilots because of the certificate.

 

[Louie1975]

Not at all. I fully understand the system and the concepts and the limitations, the design aspects and algorithms used and I am also aware of the technology coming that has not been made public yet.

@seagull is this technology that's coming pro-pilot or anti pilot. IOWs...does it support the keeping 2 pilots or not?

 

[seagull]

@seagull is this technology that's coming pro-pilot or anti pilot. IOWs...does it support the keeping 2 pilots or not?

I would say it is neutral and offer this:

"Automation technology was originally developed in hope of increasing the precision and economy of operations while, at the same time, reducing operator workload and training requirements. It was considered possible to create an autonomous system that required little if any human involvement and therefore reduced or eliminated the opportunity for human error. The assumption was that new automation can be substituted for human action without any larger impact on the system in which that action or task occurs, except on output. This view is predicated on the notion that a complex system is decomposable into a set of essentially independent tasks. Thus, automated systems could be designed without much consideration for the human element in the overall system. However, investigations of the impact of new technology have shown that these assumptions are not tenable (they are what could be termed the substitution myth). Tasks and activities are highly interdependent or coupled in real complex systems."

http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/productions/xcta/downloads/automation_surprises.pdf

 

[milleR]

As a manufacturer, if I'm certifying a new airframe and the technology exists to get single pilot authorization you'd better believe I'm going to go for it. As an operator the choice is always there to use two pilots, but the day when the FAA says "sure, the new Gulfstream is capable of being safely operated single pilot within the confines of duty/rest/operational limitations" is when we know the curve has been rounded. It's all about marketing.

 

[seagull]

As a manufacturer, if I'm certifying a new airframe and the technology exists to get single pilot authorization you'd better believe I'm going to go for it. As an operator the choice is always there to use two pilots, but the day when the FAA says "sure, the new Gulfstream is capable of being safely operated single pilot within the confines of duty/rest/operational limitations" is when we know the curve has been rounded. It's all about marketing.

OEM decisions are far more complex than that, you would be quite surprised.

 

[milleR]

OEM decisions are far more complex than that, you would be quite surprised.

I don't doubt that, all I'm saying is that if it happens, we'll know the direction we're headed in.

What I'm "quite surprised" at is how many turboprops are single pilot certified when compared to jets.

 

[PositionAndHold]

As a manufacturer, if I'm certifying a new airframe and the technology exists to get single pilot authorization you'd better believe I'm going to go for it. As an operator the choice is always there to use two pilots, but the day when the FAA says "sure, the new Gulfstream is capable of being safely operated single pilot within the confines of duty/rest/operational limitations" is when we know the curve has been rounded. It's all about marketing.

Again, as a guy sitting in the back you just spent 70’ish million on a new jet. Say you have to pay a second guy a couple hundred grand a year just to be a back up. Heck the guy could sleep in the bunk. Why wouldn't you? Knowing there has been single pilot accidents due to pilot incapacitation. The one off the top of my head was a single pilot Citation going into SUN a while back. Would you ever expect the FAA to certify single engine ETOPS? To me it's very similar. We build in so much redundancy why would we take some redundancy out just because we can prove it's a little cheaper and almost as safe? This isn't like going from a 3 man crew to a 2 man crew. This is literally like going from two engine ETOPS to single engine. Sure there's a guy on the ground who can take over in case of pilot incapacitation but there is too many what ifs. Say the one pilot has a massive incapacitation. Minutes later an un-contained engine failure takes out two of the three data link channels. No problem we've got a third...oh wait, we MEL'd it. Or a FO/dispatcher flight monitor decided to go cray cray and set fire to the facility like in Chicago and take out all the comms. Oh it'll fail safe return to base or destination. But for some reason the engine failure took out that system too. We can't even find a 777 that went missing in 2015. Give me two engines and two pilots. These aren't trains that can just stop. It's not heavy equipment that can just stop. It's not a Google driverless car that can just stop.

Edit to add pilot incapacitation.

 

[milleR]

Again, as a guy sitting in the back you just spent 70’ish million on a new jet. Say you have to pay a second guy a couple hundred grand a year just to be a back up. Heck the guy could sleep in the bunk. Why wouldn't you? Knowing there has been single pilot accidents due to pilot incapacitation. The one off the top of my head was a single pilot Citation going into SUN a while back. Would you ever expect the FAA to certify single engine ETOPS? To me it's very similar. We build in so much redundancy why would we take some redundancy out just because we can prove it's a little cheaper and almost as safe? This isn't like going from a 3 man crew to a 2 man crew. This is literally like going from two engine ETOPS to single engine. Sure there's a guy on the ground who can take over in case of pilot incapacitation but there is too many what ifs. Say the one pilot has a massive incapacitation. Minutes later an un-contained engine failure takes out two of the three data link channels. No problem we've got a third...oh wait, we MEL'd it. Or a FO/dispatcher flight monitor decided to go cray cray and set fire to the facility like in Chicago and take out all the comms. Oh it'll fail safe return to base or destination. But for some reason the engine failure took out that system too. We can't even find a 777 that went missing in 2015. Give me two engines and two pilots. These aren't trains that can just stop. It's not heavy equipment that can just stop. It's not a Google driverless car that can just stop.

Edit to add pilot incapacitation.

I get what you're saying and I agree with you. My point is only that if I were in the airplane building business, and technology allowed me to pursue a single pilot type certificate for a new airframe then I would go for it. Not because it's right or safe or makes operational sense, only because it could potentially sell more airframes. This is a business decision and has nothing to do with how the end user decides how to operate their equipment.

 

[higney85]

This gives no credence or further help to the thread; In 15 years planes will be single pilot in cargo with things mainly controlled remotely. In 20, short haul pax will be single pilot. In the 30, cargo is remote. 35, pax remote.

I say this as a worst case for the profession. I plan to retire in a worst case, be able to work if it doesn't come through, but able to walk away at any time outside 20 from now. I have zero doubt that pilots will exist for 30+ years. Question becomes, where is the location and where will CYBER security allow/prevent that realism.

 

[3green]

Stop seeing it from a pilot job preservation point of view and you will realize it is just a question of time before automation at a minimum replaces one of two pilots. Automated cars are essentially here. A fully automated car is a few years away, but it will be here in a few short years. From a public point of view once that occurs you can kiss two pilots good by. People will readily accept the automation in aircraft as superior to human control as they will be exposed to it in their daily lives and that will be all she wrote on any pilot shortage or two pilot crews. Aircraft manufacturers and airlines of course sell the concept to save money. Essentially the only person that is going to want two pilots or even a single pilot will be us(pilots).

 

[MikeD]

Asiana case it was just a small note in the manual and only added just prior to the accident. Most pilots flying the Boeing aircraft with this architecture were not aware of it when surveyed after the Asiana accident, and that tells you something.

With regard to your statements on pilot error, that is much how I used to believe also. I highly suggest you start by reading Dekker's most recent edition of "A field guide to human 'error' and then write me your thoughts after you have read it. I would be interested in your opinion.

Does indeed sound like a training issue with regards to a known potential gotcha, that probably should've been added to the manual earlier, or at least put out in a operational safety bulletin to operators so it could at least be brought to light for the operating crews. Sad it wasn't for whatever reason, as basic airmanship actions aside, that particular nuance about the aircraft shouldn't have been something the crew wasn't made aware of. To a certain degree, the crew wasn't setup for success when it came to systems knowledge/training, part and parcel from the many other factors relating to that accident.

The thing about pilot error, as it evolves, is that now it isn't always as standalone as it once may have been, depending on the particular accident dynamic. You'll still have accidents where it is or may be, but now we face accidents where the dependency or interoperability of the human to a system, and vice versa, will also need to be deeply delved into and understood, if it applies. Again, depends on the dynamics.....it may apply, or it may not. But if it does apply, that's a new road that we're still evolving our understanding on, that needs to be followed and understood as it relates to a particular accident.

In short, I believe in and agree with the evolution we're seeing with regards to the overall concept descriptor of pilot error and what it's expanding towards, but at the same time I don't completely throw away the old concepts, as there can and are times it may still apply, even if only as part of a particular dynamic of an accident (where possible new evolutionary concepts will part of other dynamics of the accident). With the advances we're seeing in automation though, we cannot "only" be stuck with the old ideas, even though I don't believe we completely toss them in the trash either.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Stop seeing it from a pilot job preservation point of view and you will realize it is just a question of time before automation at a minimum replaces one of two pilots. Automated cars are essentially here. A fully automated car is a few years away, but it will be here in a few short years. From a public point of view once that occurs you can kiss two pilots good by. People will readily accept the automation in aircraft as superior to human control as they will be exposed to it in their daily lives and that will be all she wrote on any pilot shortage or two pilot crews. Aircraft manufacturers and airlines of course sell the concept to save money. Essentially the only person that is going to want two pilots or even a single pilot will be us(pilots).

Read what I posted above. This isn't a automated train that can just stop when some thing isn't right. This isn't a Google driverless car that can pull over and stop when parameters aren't met. This isn't heavy autonomous equipment that stops when it doesn't feel right. We're talking three dimensional aircraft that have to recover to their destination or point of origin. They don't just stop. As reliable as modern turbojets are, how likely would you get on a single engine one going west coast to Hawaii?

 

[SrFnFly227]

Again, as a guy sitting in the back you just spent 70’ish million on a new jet. Say you have to pay a second guy a couple hundred grand a year just to be a back up. Heck the guy could sleep in the bunk. Why wouldn't you? Knowing there has been single pilot accidents due to pilot incapacitation. The one off the top of my head was a single pilot Citation going into SUN a while back. Would you ever expect the FAA to certify single engine ETOPS? To me it's very similar. We build in so much redundancy why would we take some redundancy out just because we can prove it's a little cheaper and almost as safe? This isn't like going from a 3 man crew to a 2 man crew. This is literally like going from two engine ETOPS to single engine. Sure there's a guy on the ground who can take over in case of pilot incapacitation but there is too many what ifs. Say the one pilot has a massive incapacitation. Minutes later an un-contained engine failure takes out two of the three data link channels. No problem we've got a third...oh wait, we MEL'd it. Or a FO/dispatcher flight monitor decided to go cray cray and set fire to the facility like in Chicago and take out all the comms. Oh it'll fail safe return to base or destination. But for some reason the engine failure took out that system too. We can't even find a 777 that went missing in 2015. Give me two engines and two pilots. These aren't trains that can just stop. It's not heavy equipment that can just stop. It's not a Google driverless car that can just stop.

Edit to add pilot incapacitation.

Your entire posts reads as if there aren't single pilot certified jets already on the market. There are. I'm single pilot type rated in 2 of them. The FAA has already approved the use of these airplanes, just not for 121 or 135 operations.

 

[SrFnFly227]

As a manufacturer, if I'm certifying a new airframe and the technology exists to get single pilot authorization you'd better believe I'm going to go for it. As an operator the choice is always there to use two pilots, but the day when the FAA says "sure, the new Gulfstream is capable of being safely operated single pilot within the confines of duty/rest/operational limitations" is when we know the curve has been rounded. It's all about marketing.

As a manufacturer, why would you spend the time and money developing and then marketing a technology or capability that you know none of your customers would use? Go look at pictures of the new Gulfstream 500/600 flight deck. There is something like 10 buttons/switches and they can easily be reached from the left seat. That plane could easily be operated single pilot, yet Gulfstream didn't bother. I have to believe that was a decision based on perceived demand.

 

[seagull]

Stop seeing it from a pilot job preservation point of view and you will realize it is just a question of time before automation at a minimum replaces one of two pilots. Automated cars are essentially here. A fully automated car is a few years away, but it will be here in a few short years. From a public point of view once that occurs you can kiss two pilots good by. People will readily accept the automation in aircraft as superior to human control as they will be exposed to it in their daily lives and that will be all she wrote on any pilot shortage or two pilot crews. Aircraft manufacturers and airlines of course sell the concept to save money. Essentially the only person that is going to want two pilots or even a single pilot will be us(pilots).

Depends on the fatality rates. I state again that the assumptions that this is based on (that "the problem" is human error) is a demonstrably false premise.

 

[seagull]

Does indeed sound like a training issue with regards to a known potential gotcha, that probably should've been added to the manual earlier, or at least put out in a operational safety bulletin to operators so it could at least be brought to light for the operating crews. Sad it wasn't for whatever reason, as basic airmanship actions aside, that particular nuance about the aircraft shouldn't have been something the crew wasn't made aware of. To a certain degree, the crew wasn't setup for success when it came to systems knowledge/training, part and parcel from the many other factors relating to that accident.

The thing about pilot error, as it evolves, is that now it isn't always as standalone as it once may have been, depending on the particular accident dynamic. You'll still have accidents where it is or may be, but now we face accidents where the dependency or interoperability of the human to a system, and vice versa, will also need to be deeply delved into and understood, if it applies. Again, depends on the dynamics.....it may apply, or it may not. But if it does apply, that's a new road that we're still evolving our understanding on, that needs to be followed and understood as it relates to a particular accident.

In short, I believe in and agree with the evolution we're seeing with regards to the overall concept descriptor of pilot error and what it's expanding towards, but at the same time I don't completely throw away the old concepts, as there can and are times it may still apply, even if only as part of a particular dynamic of an accident (where possible new evolutionary concepts will part of other dynamics of the accident). With the advances we're seeing in automation though, we cannot "only" be stuck with the old ideas, even though I don't believe we completely toss them in the trash either.

The problem again is that it really doesn't lead anywhere. One of the best attempts at what you are describing is in the Just Culture algorithm. In that, we recognize three categories, error, at-risk and reckless. Consider each of these in this context:

An error is considered an unintentional act. Can you avoid errors by just paying more attention? There is no evidence that this is true. While it might _appear_ that we can look at an event as say that the person was not paying attention, the truth is that when we reconstruct an event we are viewing it through hindsight and in doing so we can see a clear path from the outcome back to the actions. The path is much less clear when you look at it from the other way.
At-risk is a condition where a person intentionally deviates from a procedure but for a good reason. We are not supposed to look at the outcome in this, but the fact is that when a person deviates as a normal course of business at it works out well we say "that person used good judgment", but when it turns out badly we castigate them. In the algorithm we look at this as an organizational issue, and if done right, we say that the procedure or policy is out of sync with reality and that needs to be fixed.
The third is reckless, and that is just those rare times someone just does something that they know to be wrong. That is outside of this discussion (although there is evidence that pilots of RPV's are more inclined towards this as they do not have personal "skin in the game").

So, with that definition of "error", just saying someone made a mistake does little to help us, but that is precisely what we do with tools such as HFACS.

 

[milleR]

As a manufacturer, why would you spend the time and money developing and then marketing a technology or capability that you know none of your customers would use? Go look at pictures of the new Gulfstream 500/600 flight deck. There is something like 10 buttons/switches and they can easily be reached from the left seat. That plane could easily be operated single pilot, yet Gulfstream didn't bother. I have to believe that was a decision based on perceived demand.

Depends on the marginal increase in cost to get the FAA to sign off on it I suppose. I can't imagine it happening today but in 10 years? 20? Who knows? Again (and again and again and again) I'm not saying this is a good idea, but it WILL be the canary in the coal mine for what's to come IF it happens. Personally, I can imagine a single pilot G850 with concierge monitoring and optional autonomous control by Gulfstream Aerospace from their headquarters Savanah. Short hop EWR-MIA, maybe only use one pilot. Across the pond to Heathrow maybe use two pilots. It's about choices and giving the customer options.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Your entire posts reads as if there aren't single pilot certified jets already on the market. There are. I'm single pilot type rated in 2 of them. The FAA has already approved the use of these airplanes, just not for 121 or 135 operations.

Well I did mention a single pilot Citation accident due to pilot incapacitation. So I'm pretty aware of the models that are. Don't you think there's a pretty good reason they're not certified for 135/121. Although there are plenty of single pilot 135 ops in Alaska and other small charter companies but they are all single engine or piston twins that don't carry a lot of pax. Also none of the single pilot jets go very far. I really wouldn't want to use a pee tube for 6-7 hours. Again, if I was an owner that's not typed or has zero flying experience, just sitting in the back, I'd want two bodies up there.