Phenom Pilots (Single Pilot Airline Article)

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...eveals-vision-for-single-pilot-airliners.html


"With the electronics you can make a lot of the [cockpit] functions automatic," says Chiessi. "If you take the checklist of a conventional aircraft, for every 10 items you have, there are one or two on the Phenom. Every other action is being taken care of by the electronics."

Is this statement accurate?

Ain't gonna happen. What are you going to do if the single pilot has a medical emergency?

It is possible to fly many airliners today single pilot. That does not mean we should do it. Nobody in their right mind even thought of getting airliners certified for single pilot operation. The reason we have two pilots sitting up there is for safety. One pilot backs up the other. It's a check and balance system. It's not going away.

Heck it's also now technically possible to fly planes today without pilots using remote controls from half way across the world. We just don't do it with passengers on board.

Joe
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...eveals-vision-for-single-pilot-airliners.html


"With the electronics you can make a lot of the [cockpit] functions automatic," says Chiessi. "If you take the checklist of a conventional aircraft, for every 10 items you have, there are one or two on the Phenom. Every other action is being taken care of by the electronics."

Is this statement accurate?

I'd say it's inaccurate

Why?

Good question.

It depends solely on checklist design philosophy. You can fly an aircraft different ways. I've seen "legacy" design aircraft with simple flows and checklists, and modern aircraft that need a do-list and test all manner of stuff with different BITs merely for the sake of the operator.

I've seen complex flows covered by a single item "Panel Scans...complete" However, that same checklist line works for aircraft with simple flows as well.

Of course, more modern aircraft are going to have simpler flows with less required tests, and I really liked the Embraer egonomics. Especially the EJet stuff. Very well thought out and laid out cockpit with user-simple systems. Even the E145, I thought was that way.
 
Ain't gonna happen. What are you going to do if the single pilot has a medical emergency?

It is possible to fly many airliners today single pilot. That does not mean we should do it. Nobody in their right mind even thought of getting airliners certified for single pilot operation. The reason we have two pilots sitting up there is for safety. One pilot backs up the other. It's a check and balance system. It's not going away.

Heck it's also now technically possible to fly planes today without pilots using remote controls from half way across the world. We just don't do it with passengers on board.

Joe

I'm getting a good laugh reading this article plastered all over the various forums. The responses are all the same; everyone's convinced that it'd be unsafe.

I've probably flown...oh, WAG, 7000-8000 passengers in the last year and a half, single-pilot. Actually, single-pilot in some of the hardest IFR on the east coast. My company's been doing this since 1989, and carried 750,000 passengers last year, the vast majority single-pilot.

How many passengers have been killed by pilots having heart attacks, food poisoning, the clap, etc.? A big fat zero.

Certainly a two-person crew is a nice thing to have. However, if you design the cockpit correctly and employ highly-trained pilots (not just pilots who manage to pass a few sim sessions and a slow-pitch PC), I think this is doable. I don't think we'll ever see it (and I certainly do feel that a second pilot is still a great idea), but we wouldn't see airplanes falling out of the sky left and right.
 
I'm getting a good laugh reading this article plastered all over the various forums. The responses are all the same; everyone's convinced that it'd be unsafe.

I've probably flown...oh, WAG, 7000-8000 passengers in the last year and a half, single-pilot. Actually, single-pilot in some of the hardest IFR on the east coast. My company's been doing this since 1989, and carried 750,000 passengers last year, the vast majority single-pilot.

How many passengers have been killed by pilots having heart attacks, food poisoning, the clap, etc.? A big fat zero.

Certainly a two-person crew is a nice thing to have. However, if you design the cockpit correctly and employ highly-trained pilots (not just pilots who manage to pass a few sim sessions and a slow-pitch PC), I think this is doable. I don't think we'll ever see it (and I certainly do feel that a second pilot is still a great idea), but we wouldn't see airplanes falling out of the sky left and right.

We will see it. Nextgen is coming. And the simplification that being able to go direct more often, or eventually, to provide your own traffic separation even IFR (we do it VFR right now here in southeast AK with ADS-B and it is amazing how accurate and how reliable it is). Its only a matter of time before auto-land technology advances to the point where if the pilot keels over ATC can issue an auto-land command and the aircraft will smartly pilot itself down to the numbers.
 
How many passengers have been killed by pilots having heart attacks, food poisoning, the clap, etc.? A big fat zero.

There have been a few, this is the only one I can think of and the NTSB is not sure.

NTSB Identification: SEA03FA045.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, March 15, 2003 in Carey, ID
Probable Cause Approval Date: 10/28/2004
Aircraft: Cessna 501, registration: N70FJ
Injuries: 3 Fatal.At 1407:11 the flight was cleared from Flight Level (FL) 240 to descend and maintain FL 190. At 1409:08 the controller cleared the flight to descend and maintain 15,000 feet, and at 1409:17 the pilot read back the clearance in its entirety. At 1410:20 the controller instructed the pilot to expedite his descent through 16,000 feet for traffic; however, there was no response. From 1410:33 to 1417:21 the controller made ten attempts to contact the pilot; again, there was no response. At 1417:26 the controller requested the pilot to ident if he could still hear him. At 1417:38 the controller received an ident from the aircraft and instructed the pilot to descend and maintain 15,000 feet. At 1418:36 the controller cleared the aircraft for the GPS approach and to acknowledge with an ident. There was no response. The aircraft had impacted a rocky drainage trench near the base of rock outcropping on a magnetic heading of 200 degrees in a wings level, approximately 40-degree nose down attitude, 15 nautical miles east-southeast of the destination airport at an elevation of 5,630 feet mean sea level. An examination of the aircraft's flight control, pressurization, and electrical systems revealed no anomalies with these systems which would have precluded normal operations. A further examination of the thermal damage to the aircraft, determined that there was no evidence of an inflight fire. Both engines underwent a complete teardown examination revealing no evidence of catastrophic or preaccident failure, and that both engines were functioning at the time of impact. Radar data revealed the aircraft was in level flight at FL 190 for more than 4 minutes, when it had previously been cleared to 15,000 feet. It subsequently began a climb reaching an altitude of 20,300 feet before beginning a right descending turn followed by a left descending turn. The last radar return before radar contact was lost indicated the aircraft was at 15,900 feet and descending. No evidence was available that suggests icing greater than light rime icing was present in the area and that weather was unlikely to have been a factor in the accident. The pilot was on two medications for high blood pressure and one for high cholesterol. The pilot had recently been found to have an elevated blood sugar, suggesting early diabetes or some other systemic disease or injury. The pilot had a family history of heart disease and high blood pressure, and had at least one episode of chest tightness in the past. It is possible that he had some unrecognized heart disease. The circumstances of the accident suggest substantial impairment or incapacitation of the pilot. It is possible that the pilot experienced an event such as a stroke or heart attack related to his previous medical conditions or as a new occurrence. It is also possible that he became hypoxic as a result of a decompression event without using supplemental oxygen. There is insufficient information to conclude any specific cause for the pilot's impairment or incapacitation.



Old report - 1964-1979 but they came up with 5 SP accidents due to incapacitation.
I fly a Citation SP most of the time, When we got it the owner asked if I had a problem flying it SP, I said no but if I was riding in the back I would want 2 pilots up front.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830005805_1983005805.pdf
 
How many passengers have been killed by pilots having heart attacks, food poisoning, the clap, etc.? A big fat zero.

How many times has one pilot become incapacitated on an airline flight and have had the second pilot land the aircraft safely? How many times has a second pilot corrected a potential fatal mistake of the pilot flying? Not to mention the king air that somewhat recently had the pilot die and someone with a private pilot was able to save everyone on board.

We don't know some of these statistics because they aren't reported. Multi-crew aircraft still crash from pilot error. What makes people think one person would be just as safe?
 
I'm typed on the Phenom 100. Got a couple of hundred hours in it. It is a very simple airplane to fly single pilot. The checklist is short compared to a King Air or Beechjet. For those with Pilatus time, the checklist is of similar length.
 
There have been a few, this is the only one I can think of and the NTSB is not sure.

NTSB Identification: SEA03FA045.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, March 15, 2003 in Carey, ID
Probable Cause Approval Date: 10/28/2004
Aircraft: Cessna 501, registration: N70FJ
Injuries: 3 Fatal.At 1407:11 the flight was cleared from Flight Level (FL) 240 to descend and maintain FL 190. At 1409:08 the controller cleared the flight to descend and maintain 15,000 feet, and at 1409:17 the pilot read back the clearance in its entirety. At 1410:20 the controller instructed the pilot to expedite his descent through 16,000 feet for traffic; however, there was no response. From 1410:33 to 1417:21 the controller made ten attempts to contact the pilot; again, there was no response. At 1417:26 the controller requested the pilot to ident if he could still hear him. At 1417:38 the controller received an ident from the aircraft and instructed the pilot to descend and maintain 15,000 feet. At 1418:36 the controller cleared the aircraft for the GPS approach and to acknowledge with an ident. There was no response. The aircraft had impacted a rocky drainage trench near the base of rock outcropping on a magnetic heading of 200 degrees in a wings level, approximately 40-degree nose down attitude, 15 nautical miles east-southeast of the destination airport at an elevation of 5,630 feet mean sea level. An examination of the aircraft's flight control, pressurization, and electrical systems revealed no anomalies with these systems which would have precluded normal operations. A further examination of the thermal damage to the aircraft, determined that there was no evidence of an inflight fire. Both engines underwent a complete teardown examination revealing no evidence of catastrophic or preaccident failure, and that both engines were functioning at the time of impact. Radar data revealed the aircraft was in level flight at FL 190 for more than 4 minutes, when it had previously been cleared to 15,000 feet. It subsequently began a climb reaching an altitude of 20,300 feet before beginning a right descending turn followed by a left descending turn. The last radar return before radar contact was lost indicated the aircraft was at 15,900 feet and descending. No evidence was available that suggests icing greater than light rime icing was present in the area and that weather was unlikely to have been a factor in the accident. The pilot was on two medications for high blood pressure and one for high cholesterol. The pilot had recently been found to have an elevated blood sugar, suggesting early diabetes or some other systemic disease or injury. The pilot had a family history of heart disease and high blood pressure, and had at least one episode of chest tightness in the past. It is possible that he had some unrecognized heart disease. The circumstances of the accident suggest substantial impairment or incapacitation of the pilot. It is possible that the pilot experienced an event such as a stroke or heart attack related to his previous medical conditions or as a new occurrence. It is also possible that he became hypoxic as a result of a decompression event without using supplemental oxygen. There is insufficient information to conclude any specific cause for the pilot's impairment or incapacitation.



Old report - 1964-1979 but they came up with 5 SP accidents due to incapacitation.
I fly a Citation SP most of the time, When we got it the owner asked if I had a problem flying it SP, I said no but if I was riding in the back I would want 2 pilots up front.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830005805_1983005805.pdf

It happens, but so do car wrecks and other freak accidents. ;) By the way, I was referring to my company alone.

How many times has one pilot become incapacitated on an airline flight and have had the second pilot land the aircraft safely? How many times has a second pilot corrected a potential fatal mistake of the pilot flying? Not to mention the king air that somewhat recently had the pilot die and someone with a private pilot was able to save everyone on board.

We don't know some of these statistics because they aren't reported. Multi-crew aircraft still crash from pilot error. What makes people think one person would be just as safe?

Single-pilot as safe as two-crew? No. I'm certainly a big proponent of two-pilot crews for the sake of flight safety. Being on my union's safety committee, we're pushing for more standardization and better use of CRM with two-pilot crews.

However, is single-pilot unsafe itself? No, not at all.
 
Back
Top