Are Pilot Only Operated planes possible?

[infobleep]

Given all the talk about Driver Only Operated trains and the fact aeroplanes have co-pilots and air stewards/stewardess', could aeroplanes ever run as POO, pilot only operated?

I wouldn't want to see it happen but what would be stopping i

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[atillathehunn]

Yes there are flights which are flight crew only. The small island hoppers.

However beyond 19 passengers a member of cabin crew must be carried for safety purposes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've been on a plane on which the only member of staff on board was a single pilot. As posted only smaller ones, though.

 

[DaleCooper]

I'm sure Google are already working on pilotless planes.

 

[Dave1987]

Theoretically it's perfectly possible. Is it desirable, no. Cabin crew on the whole mainly do customer service, trolley dolly work and arm/disarm escape slides. But that one time in a thousand flights where there is an engine fire or the flight crew balls up the approach (like what happened in Dubai recently) they are invaluable. Fortunately the various aviation authorities around the world see their value so they are still compulsory.

Single piloting is probably eventually going to happen as crew workloads are much much reduced in modern aircraft. Electronic checklists and ACARS means pilots are much less likely to make mistakes and performance data is sent straight to the aircraft from home base so crew don't have to work out performance data on the fly.

 

[me123]

Interestingly, we've had a discussion about this quite recently (when "heartofwessex" coined the term POO).

In short - yes, pilot only operation is possible on smaller planes, but usually entails two pilots. Most planes require cabin crew and I can't see that ever changing. The basic issues involved here are security and safety, which are more of an issue on an aircraft than on a train. Most pilots are now segregated from the pax throughout the flight, so maintaining safety in the cabin needs cabin crew. I'd argue this is more of an issue in the skies than on the rails, but that's not to diminish the role of the guards. There's simply a lot more than can go wrong on an aircraft and a lot more that the crew would need to do in an emergency.

Besides, airlines have expanded their role to include in flight retail, so they certainly pay their way.

 

[infobleep]

Interestingly, we've had a discussion about this quite recently (when "heartofwessex" coined the term POO).

In short - yes, pilot only operation is possible on smaller planes, but usually entails two pilots. Most planes require cabin crew and I can't see that ever changing. The basic issues involved here are security and safety, which are more of an issue on an aircraft than on a train. Most pilots are now segregated from the pax throughout the flight, so maintaining safety in the cabin needs cabin crew. I'd argue this is more of an issue in the skies than on the rails, but that's not to diminish the role of the guards. There's simply a lot more than can go wrong on an aircraft and a lot more that the crew would need to do in an emergency.

Besides, airlines have expanded their role to include in flight retail, so they certainly pay their way.

Cheers. I missed that.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Howardh]

I've been on a plane on which the only member of staff on board was a single pilot. As posted only smaller ones, though.

Why, is the cockpit not big enough for taller ones??



Sorry I'll get my coat.

 

[Western Lord]

Thanks to the Germanwings suicide, there is no prospect of pilot only operation happening.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Single piloting is probably eventually going to happen as crew workloads are much much reduced in modern aircraft

I disagree. The technology is certainly there- and to be honest, the technology is there to have no pilots on board.

But between AF447, MH370 and Germanwings 9525 I don't see it ever happening in mainstream commercial aviation.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks to the Germanwings suicide, there is no prospect of pilot only operation happening.

It already happens on many smaller flights, and has done for years. And yes, quite often with a single pilot.

The difference is about the consumer perception of risk, regardless of whether that perception be logical or not.

 

[Dave1987]

I disagree. The technology is certainly there- and to be honest, the technology is there to have no pilots on board.

But between AF447, MH370 and Germanwings 9525 I don't see it ever happening in mainstream commercial aviation.

That I definitely disagree with. I could go into the ins and outs but it gets very very technical, but the tech is definitely not up to the stage of the aircraft completely flying itself with no human interaction. Whether we get to a stage where the workload it sufficiently low to enable single manning on the flight deck is up for debate. But like you say incidents like those you have pointed out mean there is no desire to go to single manning on the flight deck currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It already happens on many smaller flights, and has done for years. And yes, quite often with a single pilot.

The difference is about the consumer perception of risk, regardless of whether that perception be logical or not.

Apart from very small General aviation aircraft the only aircraft I know of that are certified for single crew operation commercially are the VLJ's or "Very light Jets" which are essentially small Cessnas with jet engines bolted to them.

Which smaller commercial flights operate single pilot?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it perhaps more likely, on large aircraft, that we'll get to CCOO (Cabin Crew Only Operation) sooner? If the plane can fly itself...

 

[Dave1987]

Is it perhaps more likely, on large aircraft, that we'll get to CCOO (Cabin Crew Only Operation) sooner? If the plane can fly itself...

No, the plane cannot fly itself. Look up ACARS and it will show you what "ship to shore" communications the airlines have.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, the plane cannot fly itself.

It can't now, but it certainly could in the future.

On the railway, FWIW, I would expect guard-only operation a la DLR to usurp driver-only-operation before too long.

 

[Dave1987]

It can't now, but it certainly could in the future.

On the railway, FWIW, I would expect guard-only operation a la DLR to usurp driver-only-operation before too long.

I highly doubt it. They don't even have radar coverage over the mid Atlantic yet, and still report their position via HF to Shanwick or Gander on CDPLC.

And the DLR is a closed loop purpose built system, which is vastly different to the mainline. Comparing the two is frankly ridiculous.

 

[trainmania100]

I don't like the sound of poo.
The planes might get hacked by radio communications or something
(just my opinion)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I highly doubt it. They don't even have radar coverage over the mid Atlantic yet, and still report their position via HF to Shanwick or Gander on CDPLC.

It's more viable a concept than automated cars. Planes don't have to interact with other planes in such uncontrolled circumstances as cars.

And the DLR is a closed loop purpose built system, which is vastly different to the mainline. Comparing the two is frankly ridiculous.

No, it's not. DLR is 1990s technology (or earlier?) - with 2050s technology I am certain it will happen.

 

[edwin_m]

The risk profile is very different between trains and aircraft.

If necessary the train can be stopped safely anywhere along the route simply by applying the brakes, which happens automatically if the driver is incapacitated and fails to respond to vigilance or AWS warnings. However an aircraft requires the pilot's skilled actions at various times during the flight, so it is reasonable to expect a second pilot to be available in case the primary pilot is unable to continue. The small planes mentioned are an exception, risk probably being mitigated because an illness is less likely to be able to develop to the level of incapacitation during the short flights operated by such aircraft. I believe also these pilots have to have increased medical checks to operate alone.

If an aircraft has to be evacuated then there is often also a fire or a significant risk of fire breaking out. Therefore evacuation must be achieved very quickly and this is a primary safety role of the cabin crew. They also police passenger behaviour, such as wearing seat belts, which could otherwise result in injury. None of this has a counterpart on trains - they are much less vulnerable to fire and it is extremely unusual for the evacuation to be time-critical.

Finally, we have seen what can happen if the cockpit of an aircraft is taken over by someone with malicious intent. While it would be possible to do the same with a train, it's very hard to see how the consequences would be anywhere near as serious, and there is also scope for the authorities to intervene by re-routeing or cutting traction power. So the risk of having one person in the cockpit of an aircraft is significantly greater than that of having one person in the cab of a train. This would seem to rule out options such as having one pilot in the cockpit and a pilot-trained member of cabin crew able to take over if necessary.

 

[deltic]

Freight only aircraft would be first step to go crew less - drone technology also shows the potential for a ground based pilot looking after a number of aircraft at the same time.

Pilotless planes are being tested but AFAIK they are very small planes

 

[infobleep]

The risk profile is very different between trains and aircraft.

If necessary the train can be stopped safely anywhere along the route simply by applying the brakes, which happens automatically if the driver is incapacitated and fails to respond to vigilance or AWS warnings. However an aircraft requires the pilot's skilled actions at various times during the flight, so it is reasonable to expect a second pilot to be available in case the primary pilot is unable to continue. The small planes mentioned are an exception, risk probably being mitigated because an illness is less likely to be able to develop to the level of incapacitation during the short flights operated by such aircraft. I believe also these pilots have to have increased medical checks to operate alone.

If an aircraft has to be evacuated then there is often also a fire or a significant risk of fire breaking out. Therefore evacuation must be achieved very quickly and this is a primary safety role of the cabin crew. They also police passenger behaviour, such as wearing seat belts, which could otherwise result in injury. None of this has a counterpart on trains - they are much less vulnerable to fire and it is extremely unusual for the evacuation to be time-critical.

Finally, we have seen what can happen if the cockpit of an aircraft is taken over by someone with malicious intent. While it would be possible to do the same with a train, it's very hard to see how the consequences would be anywhere near as serious, and there is also scope for the authorities to intervene by re-routeing or cutting traction power. So the risk of having one person in the cockpit of an aircraft is significantly greater than that of having one person in the cab of a train. This would seem to rule out options such as having one pilot in the cockpit and a pilot-trained member of cabin crew able to take over if necessary.

But is the risk great enough on a plane. Isn't one still more likely to get the over by a bus than die in a plane crash?

I don't want things to change, I'm just trying to see the other argument here.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[edwin_m]

But is the risk great enough on a plane. Isn't one still more likely to get the over by a bus than die in a plane crash?

I don't want things to change, I'm just trying to see the other argument here.

I agree the risk of the pilot becoming incapacitated seems small. However another factor is the way the two pilots cross-check each others' activities and provide support if something is going wrong. This is very obvious from reading the AAIB reports.

Air casualty rates are indeed very low, at least in the West. But I think this is because of all the safety precautions that the industry applies, particularly in relation to fast evacuation. The incident in Dubai a few months ago could have killed all on board if the cabin crew hadn't managed to get everyone out within a minute or so.

 

[AlterEgo]

Apart from very small General aviation aircraft the only aircraft I know of that are certified for single crew operation commercially are the VLJ's or "Very light Jets" which are essentially small Cessnas with jet engines bolted to them.

Which smaller commercial flights operate single pilot?

Many, many flights in the USA operate with a single pilot. A flew in an Air Choice One Cessna Caravan and sat in the right hand seat! I've also flown on Pilatus and Hawker aircraft on commercial tickets which also had a single pilot. There are Islanders which fly in this country with a single pilot.

A world away from the Airbus A320, of course!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In theory of course, a pilotless operation (if it were possible) would have prevented the Germanwings tragedy...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I can't see pilotless planes ever happening. With the DLR if it looses its data link to the control computer it just brakes and stops where it is. With a plane you can't just stop where you are plus you'll have planes above and below and to both sides, all of which won't necessarily be going in the same direction

 

[Domh245]

I can't see pilotless planes ever happening. With the DLR if it looses its data link to the control computer it just brakes and stops where it is. With a plane you can't just stop where you are plus you'll have planes above and below and to both sides, all of which won't necessarily be going in the same direction

That's rather naive. Most airliners already fly themselves between airports already, so it's clearly not a concern, but even if it was, they don't need to worry about loosing contact with a central control because a) It already knows where it is going based on it's large navigational database, and it's almost certainly not going to change, b) It is a damn sight more manoeuvrable than a DLR train - it can simply follow established protocol for approaching aircraft, as well as using ACAS/TCAS.

Cars and Aircraft are more alike than Railways and Aircraft.

 

[Dave1987]

That's rather naive. Most airliners already fly themselves between airports already, so it's clearly not a concern, but even if it was, they don't need to worry about loosing contact with a central control because a) It already knows where it is going based on it's large navigational database, and it's almost certainly not going to change, b) It is a damn sight more manoeuvrable than a DLR train - it can simply follow established protocol for approaching aircraft, as well as using ACAS/TCAS.

Cars and Aircraft are more alike than Railways and Aircraft.

Whilst I agree once the IRS's are aligned properly the aircraft knows where it is in the air pretty accurately it's still not that accurate in the wider context. RNP for none terminal areas is up to 3 miles, so as long as the ANP stays below which is mostly does then you are fine. But what happens in terminal areas where the RNP drops to as little as 0.5 miles and for some reason the IRS and GPS cannot provide that ANP level? What happens when the aircraft is landing ADIRU gets conflicting info from different sensors? Currently the automation kicks out and gives control back to the pilots, couldn't do that if there are none. We are a very very very long way off pilotless planes if they ever happen at all.

 

[me123]

^ I very much doubt they'll ever happen. Even if we do head to full automation, the pilots will be retained in case of emergency. But even then, they'll only be useful if they occasionally have a go at flying a plane, so I doubt we'll ever go fully automated.

That's not to say that there isn't a role for increased automation. Improved automation on take-offs and landings may well be an answer to capacity problems at larger airports.

 

[Dave1987]

^ I very much doubt they'll ever happen. Even if we do head to full automation, the pilots will be retained in case of emergency. But even then, they'll only be useful if they occasionally have a go at flying a plane, so I doubt we'll ever go fully automated.

That's not to say that there isn't a role for increased automation. Improved automation on take-offs and landings may well be an answer to capacity problems at larger airports.

The big thing that impacts capacity is weather in aviation. Since Cat 3b landings where brought in it means aircraft can land in near zero visibility, but the airport has to be suitably equipped, the aircraft has to certified and equipped and the crew have to be certified. Airports also have Cat 3 procedures in place which reduces capacity. I really don't see how there much more capacity to be gained without bringing aircraft even closer together but you have to remember about wake turbulence which is extremely dangerous. They already operate RVSM airspace if your aircraft is suitably equipped.

 

[GB]

In theory of course, a pilotless operation (if it were possible) would have prevented the Germanwings tragedy...

Horses for courses. Pilotless planes may very well have saved some tragedies, but could also have affected those that did land safely(ish) in a negative way.