airline flights... ONE pilot aboard (!!!)

[Rick50]

 

 

 

 

So apparently there is an effort to certify the A350 long-haul airliner for flights with a single pilot. Consider that this airliner has one of the longest ranges available. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350

A350-1000 accommodates 350 to 410 passengers, has a maximum range of 16,100 km (8,700 nmi)

 

 

It's one thing for me to be comfortable with a single pilot for short hops like an hour or two... but for a 10 to 22 hour flight?  So the lone pilot, goes for a bathroom break... and no one is on the flight deck?!  What if the lone pilot gets sick, either from tainted food, or maybe a flu or something? What if the plane experiences a fuel loss that's not noticed early enough due to fewer eyes and one less brain than normal?

 

And what's next for future airliners looking to reduce costs? A move to single engine?  I get the desire to reduce from 3 or 4 engines to two. I get the desire to reduce from 2 pilots a navigator and flight engineer down to just two pilots... but to then just have one single pilot... I dunno.  

[twgin]

I'm pretty sure more than one pilot will be on the plane.  Currently, on long haul stuff airlines might have two full crews onboard, or perhaps 3 pilots where the 3rd can spell the others.  So this Airbus scheme is to get approval for one pilot only to be on the flight deck during high altitude cruise, the other(s) being able to rest.  During takeoff, landing, ascent, descent and any other regime other than high altitude cruise, two pilots would be on the flight deck.  Might be able to shrink crew sizes for the longest routes.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

I would reply “there’s no way” but since the world seems to have lost its mind….

Probably be a pilot, stewardess and 4 counselors/ advocates. 

[Rick50]

 

This seems to me to be a way of just cutting costs and freeing up the same number of pilots for a lot more flights, without having to pay for training new pilots. 

 

They still want to have pilots pay for all their training, despite qualified pilot shortages. 

 

And now there are other shortages too, leading to not enough resources to complete flights, and now some airlines have started cancelling flights apparently. 

 

I think one effect is in the near future is a dramatic jump in ticket prices

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

This seems to me to be a way of just cutting costs and freeing up the same number of pilots for a lot more flights, without having to pay for training new pilots. 

 

They still want to have pilots pay for all their training, despite qualified pilot shortages. 

 

And now there are other shortages too, leading to not enough resources to complete flights, and now some airlines have started cancelling flights apparently. 

 

I think one effect is in the near future is a dramatic jump in ticket prices

"What do you mean we can't pay out stick movers Burger flipper prices!?"

"The peons want to be able to buy food!?!? OUTLANDISH!"

[unlikely_spider]

I thought they had this issue solved in the 70s

[cordite]

3 hours ago, unlikely_spider said:

I thought they had this issue solved in the 70s

 

 

The 80s

[Rick50]

On 8/8/2021 at 7:08 PM, twgin said:

I'm pretty sure more than one pilot will be on the plane.  Currently, on long haul stuff airlines might have two full crews onboard, or perhaps 3 pilots where the 3rd can spell the others.  So this Airbus scheme is to get approval for one pilot only to be on the flight deck during high altitude cruise, the other(s) being able to rest.  During takeoff, landing, ascent, descent and any other regime other than high altitude cruise, two pilots would be on the flight deck.  Might be able to shrink crew sizes for the longest routes.

 

You are probably correct on all of that.

 

My question is... is it wise?

 

I mean, airline pilots aren't paid for watching the FMS do it's thing. They are paid to notice when things go wrong, horribly wrong, and react well using their knowledge and experience to salvage what they can to save lives. They are paid to deal with high traffic airspaces. Engine failures, fuel loss. Flameouts causing loss of control. Navigational issues.  And dealing with such things, I personally would want two brains in the cockpit rather than one. The communication between the two, the unique experiences the two have, make for a wider set of skills.

 

For instance, fuel loss turning an airliner into a larger glider than the Space Shuttle, has happened twice to Canadian airliners. AFAIK, both crews had one pilot who had extensive experience flying gliders... which translated into successful emergency landings, instead of complete loss of life. Sure, I'm no expert and I only provide two examples, but despite the cost, I think two minds are better than just one. When those two pilots' salaries are shared among 200-500 passengers, I dont' think it's rediculous to expect. It just seems to me that the airlines are wanting to cut expenses, with no real benefit to offset this.