I've seen this covered in a documentary. Both pilots and the flight engineer become incapacitated so they ask the passengers if there's anyone with flight experience amongst the passengers. Luckily there's a veteran fighter pilot with a drinking problem who manages to land the plane.
I'm only a private pilot, but I can't possibly imagine the stress that would come with single pilot operations. Flying a single engine plane is a pretty intense experience, you can quickly become task saturated, especially when arriving or departing a busy airport. And those planes are vastly less complex than an airliner. No matter how much automation you add to them, the pilot still must be able to manage and track everything. To give an example of what might happen if an airliner went to single pilot ops, there are multiple well documented crashes of complex single engine private aircraft. These high performance business planes have similar complexity to an airliner, but large amounts of automation allowing legal single pilot flight. Each of those crashes involved a failure of automation, followed by the pilot becoming rapidly task saturated and then losing control. Crew Resource Management was developed in response to crashes, and multiple crews have attributed their success during emergencies to CRM. Nothing good could possibly come from going single pilot for commercial aviation!
You're talking about flying a 'dumb' airplane without the automated systems that would obviously need to be developed, tested, and verified before this sort of single pilot operation is approved for use. We're many many many many years away from that. FD is scaremongering here because of the economic threat it faces to pilots and has had to reduce himself to conspiracies about how airbus and easa are murderous rather than what they are - just working on developing possibly viable possibly not future tech. 100 years ago you wouldn't dream about having a fully automated train - you wouldn't have less than 2 people in the cab normally. now, fully automated trains are the norm. are trains the same as planes? obviously not. but the idea that the tech shouldnt be developed in principle and then evaluated objectively are bullshit rent seeking by FD on behalf of paid pilots.
@@ac583Tell that to the thousands of airline pilots that have families to feed. It’s easy for you to talk about how great all of this “innovation” is, because it doesn’t affect you financially.
"I find an AI that is reliable 90% of the time far more dangerous than an AI reliable only 50% of the time. Because with time, humans making used of the one reliable 90% of the time will put it in command of much more critical services without checking what it is actually doing, until each of its failures become catastrophic every time."
My dad's a pilot, just small time stuff, and having helped out in preflight checks and prep for flights, there's no way crude AI means squat when it can't even handle driving. You simply can't replace pilots with anything less than a human-but-a-computer. Too much danger when you have 100+ lives at risk for those on board, and however many hundreds below near any crash site.
What about all the accidents caused by pilots? I think the computers can do way better than humans. But we have a mindset to forgive a human, not a machine in case of error.
The issue with subjects like this is people form an opinion “I feel like the computers can do better than humans.” Yet they don’t know the tasks, subtasks, etc involved in the entire task. Can a computer hold altitude for 6 hours straight better than a human? Yes. Can it interpolate incomplete data about various unforeseen risks and quickly determine the safest course of action? No. Can it quickly determine that its best chance is to land off airport? No. Let your opinion be formed by the facts as they are, as addressed in the video. The high level tasks, such as responding to an emergency and formulating a new plan in light of all available information, is currently best achieved by a two pilot crew.
@@flightdojo My guess is that most emergencies that can occur on airliners require pilots to stick to step based emergency procedures, preferably without too much improvising. Computers are already far more better doing this. (eventually AI will also be better at improvising) My concern is you take away redundancy flying with one pilot as in "let's remove a backup hydraulic system cause it's way cheaper"
Because they want to get rid of one out of two jumpseats, and produce a system that in the future can safely land an aircraft if all three pilots are incompasitated? Meanwhile no flight uses two cabin jump seats, and it's quicker to go to a toilet closer, making that a safer idea.
I see some of the comments in for this video, a bit surprised TBH. Nah Mate, good on ya for making this video! It is so true that us general public so often hear about planes being computer controlled & how little input is from the pilots. For the longest time I had been confused because I know that pilots still undergo years of rigorous training & have to be certified & maintain those certifications etc. That is in contradiction to the belief that people have about the supposed minor input from pilots. I'm with you on this one. Also kind of mind boggling to see that people can't seem to fathom that big time companies would put profits over safety & wellbeing of customers. It's not just history rhyming, it's bloody repeating itself. Good on you for speaking out!
Yeah mate we hear that “planes fly themselves” nonsense all the time from people who haven’t the slightest idea how to fly one. Years ago when this was allowed I took my father-in-law to work and he sat up in the cockpit with us. After the flight, which was in bad weather and high terrain, he said “I had no idea what you did for a living” and I said “yeah dad you thought I sat in a comfy chair doing nothing except occasionally ringing a bell to get the girl to bring us a cuppa yeah?” And he said “pretty much.” Everybody who knows nothing is pretty confident they know, but they don’t.
Any one with enougth knowledge and capable to see how the world is today can rezlie, the bpolitician and big corpos dont care about the general public, i mean the elecction of the US president show us that, they prefer to continue declining as long as they continue at the top the bottom can all disapear for all they care. Airbus with only seen what happen to Boing should inmidiatly discard all these programs, but looks like the desire for profit is such a powerful drug that not even seen that Boing is at the border of bankrupt and yet it doesnt matter
The examples of two pilots working together to solve a critical problem are good ones. What is not recorded however, are times like this, that happen every day : “climbing through 18,000 feet the captain forgot to re-set his altimeter to 29.92. The first officer said something like “yo skipper, you going to switch to standard?” and the captain said “oh yeah, thanks” and set his altimeter correctly. Half an hour later they passed an opposite-direction flight, safely spaced 1000’ apart and NOTHING HAPPENED because everyone’s altimeter was set correctly. Never recorded. Banal shit like this happens all the time. A team is able to check each others’ work. A missed procedure is caught. An accident doesn’t happen. This shit happens EVERY DAY and never factors into “statistics” because nothing happens. The reason nothing happens is that we check each others’ work.
At no point in this video did I question whether a program can land an aircraft. What it can’t do is plan and reason and handle big picture tasks. That’s my point.
I think the main application is reducing the size of the crew for long haul flights. Obviously they hope to expand it to single pilot ops from takeoff to touch down, but I just don't see how that'd go anywhere for a long time. Maybe some day when the systems have proven themselves, but we aren't there yet, and I don't even see how we'd get there with what's out there today.
Nobody but nobody is talking about doing this with "what's out there today." FD is deliberately mischaracterizing the situation and scaremongering on behalf of pilot unions.
Let's remember why Boeing complicated the equipment on the 737 max models? In order to satisfy the demands of the companies to have a new plane for which pilots already certified on the 737 do not need additional authorization. Boeing did not do this out of their own will, and honestly this option complicates the manufacturing process of the plane. In the same way, removing a pilot from the cabin imposes an additional expense for the development of systems and equipment capable of reducing the work of the remaining pilot. So Airbus aligns itself with the requirements of transport companies.
Well, at least a toilet won't deliberately fly an airliner into a mountain because it's depressed. Unless it's a Japanese toilet. Those things are so advanced they can...errr...theyre as advanced as an instrument panel. They even have an instrument panel. 😁😜😉
@@flightdojo Do you not understand humour? And where is my argument we should remove all pilots? Are you high or just stupid? The only hilarious thing here is your low IQ. Get a life, asshole 😂🤦🤷
@@flightdojo Since 1960, there have been t least 428 commercial aviation incidents resulting in loss of life that were directly attributed to pilot error, and that's only the ones I can easily find documentation for. I cannot find any documentation whatsoever of an autopilot failure resulting in loss of life. If you can, I will contemplate my stance on the relative safety of automatic systems as opposed to human pilots.
Nuts. You gotta wonder if mckensey associates have been over to make some recommendation's. Its stupid seeing that they already have a backlog they can't complete fast enough. Also if you have 1 pilot, really you have just an inspector to take charge in a situation where the AI flight system has failed. Literally what happens if your pilot is taken ill during flight? How the hell do you do an emergency checklist and fly at the same time?
Like most controversies there is no hard right or wrong. Nuance and context is key. But what I would say as a Check Airman with 32 years in the game and 20+ years on airbuses, narrow and wide body, is that as good as automation has become, such systems are not infallible. They can and do fail. And an appropriately selected, trained and experienced human can often work around such systems failures. (I’ve had to). And yes the planes have become easier to operate, but it’s not always the case with abnormals or emergencies. Especially with many younger pilots who’ve come on to the heavy metal without the traditional progression that builds instincts and common sense. Itself a symptom of greedy bonus driven executives who see cadet F/O’s as a money saving, pilot shortage side step. I myself would never trust my family to a pilotless airliner, and would have serious doubts with a single pilot airliner. Sh*t happens as they say, and when the computers fail (along with so called back ups), experience and basic skills matters.
assuming this is a comment to suggest that my presentation isn't accurate, other than just proving you're a tech fetishist, do you have any data or studies to support your stance? I cited several official studies and myself have over 5000 hours as a 121 airline pilot. I was just wondering if you had a better insight into the subject than me if you'd like to share your knowledge?
Also.. another of my 2cents on this subject. I have sweet FA knowledge about being a pilot. Having said that I don't think it is a coincidence that all this is coming to a-head when there is this zeitgeist ATM of being anti expert. Distrust in people learning in specialized areas, science, medicine, economics, engineering etc. is being fostered by the "big wigs of society". Not to get too political, but yeah, it's not a coincidence that the attitude towards pilots & other specialties is on the decline & people assuming that we can just "technology" our problems away. You are correct when you say that this is NOT just an issue in the airline industry but almost all industries (across the board) & we also see it in our social institutions. Distrust in anyone with a field in expertise of any kind.
Pilots can chose their actions, even in circumstances they have never encountered before. Artificial intelligence relies on pre-programming, which is fine if every possible situation is programmed into it. Humans have freedom to be creative, chose their actions (free will), whereas programs, by definition must follow the program. The DC10 example you use is an example where free choice and creativity came up with a procedure that no pre-programming would have arrived at. For a start, computers need situational awareness, and how is that possible when sensors are destroyed as in QF32 out of Singapore. The underlying false premise of full automation is that computers can think and make creative choices in an infinite set of circumstances they were never programmed for.
You repeated a number of times that the push for single pilot operation is an example of Airbus greed to reduce their (Airbus) labor costs. You should follow up with how single pilot operation will reduce Airbus's costs enough to justify the massive amount of R&D and engineering required to implement this level of automation. Did you consider this is a drive by the airline customers to reduce their own operating costs and Airbus is reacting to market demands?
The certification regulations require that any failure which could lead to a hull loss must be shown to be extremely improbable which means less than 1 chance in a billion. A human being doesn’t meet that standard so a single pilot airliner is a no pilot airliner. Since the ability for the ground to direct the airplane will be essential that means you have to have a datalink that allows control of the aircraft from the ground. Which means that datalink must be unbearable and unhackable to the 1 in a billion standard. That doesn’t exist and the power of AI to replace a pilot will also mean that same AI can be employed to hack into an aircraft’s control system and bring it down. You also can’t account for black swan events. Like the Continental 757 operating overwater at night with one engine driven generator Inop. Then mid flight the second engine driven generator failed. This left the APU generator handling the whole load until it too failed. The RAT deployed as it should to provide the last line of defense but since they were having a bad day it too failed to function leaving them on battery power alone. If that’s an AI driven aircraft it crashes. But with two experienced humans at the controls they managed the crisis and landed it safely. I will also add that in my last 18 years flying the 320 series I’ve seen multiple times where we had to adopt new procedures because an “impossible failure” happened. In those cases experienced pilots were able to save the day. What does an AI system do when presented with a malfunction it has been programmed to believe is impossible?
How do the people responsible for these SNAFU's actually sleep at nite, I personally couldn't but then there are suspect humans who can with no problems which doesn't say much for their morals, or credibility!
Removing a jump seat, which is NOT a point of access to controls, and installing a pax seat or a toilet, does NOT delete a pilot seat. If that is what you are saying, you are full of it and probably need that toilet yourself. Either reassess your description and facts or take this twaddle down.
@@tedsmith6137 it’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying during emco as it’s proposed, the only remaining pilot will be expected to use the toilet and not be at the controls. Therefore, no one will be at the controls. Understand the situation before crying in the comments. The title is: they are removing a Pilot (true) and adding a toilet (true).
@@flightdojoExcept that was not the proposal, that was the pushback to the proposal. Which was wrong, because the proposal was for very short flights to possibly have a single pilot, if they could prove all the safety systems worked, including the aircraft being able to locate a suitable airport, declare an emergency to flight safety oops, and land safely. Which over the few years would be built and checked, again and again, with two pilots at the controls Essentially it is a proposal, to possibly have rules in the future, that would allow investment in the system to today.
The solution for the emergency that Flight 232 had came from one man. Granted, he didn't have his hand on the controls but that doesn't prelude the crew in control from coming up a solution (seethe Gimli glider or the BA flight that went through the ash cloud over tge Philippines). Nir does it mean that a properly programmed computer coupd come up with solutions.
@flightdojo ah, the exception that proves the rule. Air France Flight 447 proves that human pilots don't always work together and fail to recognise the danger they are in and effectively invalidates your argument for having multiple pilots being more effective than one pilot.
If indeed Airbus trajectory to single pilot is correct this needs to be acted on by US and UK authorities. Also passengers should refuse to fly on single piloted airliners.
@@flightdojoWhat research? The pushback is against rule changes to allow research. You have got the wrong end of the stick here, all pushed by people that want to restrict research to protect their union from falling income, because the research could lead to less pilots, therefore less union members. Always look at motivation behind what is said, then work from there. Maybe read the proposal on rule changes, and the rule changes. It is all about research, oh and getting rid of one out of two jumpseats that is never used on most flights.
@ it says in the EASA documents that they acknowledge the benefit is reducing flight time credits. The research is already being conducted. There is no push back against research. The unions are pushing against rulemaking before the research is complete. Literally almost not of your rebuttal is accurate.
"gave up flying in ,on airlines with introduction and experience of DEI " in other words you got drunk, got fired, and blamed in on some random black person. you people are so cringe.
@@flightdojo bullshit. this "rulemaking therefore it's happening" argument that you are making is utter bullshit. basic guideline rulemaking can be made for AI cars even before they are finalized or even started. Notice how neither you nor the ALPA guy go into the details of that 'rulemaking.' Because what's there is rudimentary, cautious, and meant to encourage (and in some cases for the interest of safety) innovation. We have rules for drugs that don't exist yet and that might never exist. Your whole spiel from about the 1:30 mark of the video for the next 20-30 seconds or so is so obviously dishonest that you've lost all credibility. EASA and AIRBUS are two of the world players that have most contributed to drastic improvements in aviation safety over the last few decades. for you to demonize them as profit-hungry-mass-murderers is so dishonest it's beyond words. Let them innovate.
@flightdojo apologies, have to adjust, it's not bs in its entirety, but the title is very misleading, I take it back. Interesting topics, just a bit over the top with the title
The businessmen are selling your lives at the cost of a first officer. A couple bucks per seat. The technology WILL NEVER replace the safety level of two pilots. I agree with everything flight dojo is passing on here. I have had multiple power plant failures, a couple fires, and smoke and fumes events. Managing these events alone would not have always worked. I will never get on an airliner without two pilots. -major air line captain.
Remind me, how many commercial aviation incidents in the last 25 years have been due to pilot error? And how many have been due to automatic systems malfunctioning?
@@jamesharding3459 the simple reason why its high is due to Pilots being the last line of defense, there are considerably more times Pilots have saved an aircraft, the issue is at how the data is presented
OK, an aircraft can't tell if there is an emergency vehicle on the runway, because a car can't? That's your argument against building a system, where that would be information is put a not a future safety system for aircraft, by airtrafic controllers? You don't want understand that getting rid of one of two jumpseats, reduces the ability of having one emergency pilot at hand by zero, because there is still one jump seat? I get why you see it as dangerous, you swallowed lies I stead of looking at the paperwork that you put on the screen for everyone to see.
@@Right-Is-Right nobody swallowed lies. You seem to be on board with automation replacing pilots so please link me a single study that corroborates those claims. There are none.
I reemmber an episode of may dai may dai, that in a brand new boing 767, that those were the first to replace the fly engineer, and in that fligth the plane run out of fuel, because the trucks that refuel the plane, work with punds and the sistem work with kilograms, in the past the fky engineer do all the math and convertion rates, now is the sistem that do it and the computer was not operational and give the math to the pilot and co pilot who are not train to do the conversion. So the plane take off half fuel, now we have more automation, and it is easy blame the pilot than the persons tha build and computers. Is easy said lets bring more robots so the big company save money, worst is that the jobs that we eliminate are level enrty jobs, so we have more people specialy young wiouth jobs, but now even important jobs, later what, robots in operation rooms, drones in war, we are detaching more and more of the humanity, and all so big corpos win more money,
and to think that there are those who argue that the profit-maximizing system is the correct path for humanity, and don't even benefit from the profits.
I don't think single pilot operations will have any real effect on safety. However it will eliminate peoples jobs and make the jobs of the remaining people a lot harder and that is outrageous. First they eliminated the flight engineers now they want to eliminate the FO. Cutting jobs is not acceptable. Especially good paying jobs like these. I'm a merchant mariner and the same shit is happening in our industry. If you eliminate all the jobs then you won't have any customers anymore because no one will have a job and working some low paying job isn't going to result in a customer because when you can barely make ends meet your not going to be taking trips be them on an aircraft or a ship, and your not going to be buying stuff ether so that will reduce the freight as well. This crap is happening in all kinds of industries, how many jobs can you eliminate before the entire economy collapses?
if you can fly with 1 pilot, you can fly with no pilots. How are you doing an emergency check list and flying? or how are you going to fly when the pilot is ill? Airbus propose a pilot on hot standby in a remote location - ready to take over if needed.
I was an aircraft mechanic for over 50 years. Between Boeing & Airbus, I'll take Boeing every time. It's much easier to work on but more importantly, it requires less work.
Except for take off and landing, most of the time, the aircraft is controlled by the AutoPilot. Single pilot operation only make sense for short distance flight, where the crew don't even need to go to toilet because the flight will end before they feel the need to answer nature call.
Keep the pilots and ditch the cabin crew. Like seriously, what do they really do? Waitresses on an airborne bus are just not needed. In the event of a crash they are of no help anyway. They are just there to sell peanuts to obese muppets that cannot go two hours without eating crap.
I've seen this covered in a documentary. Both pilots and the flight engineer become incapacitated so they ask the passengers if there's anyone with flight experience amongst the passengers. Luckily there's a veteran fighter pilot with a drinking problem who manages to land the plane.
🤣😂. I remember that documentary. Didn't that pilot go on to fly the Space Shuttle to the Moon?
I'm only a private pilot, but I can't possibly imagine the stress that would come with single pilot operations. Flying a single engine plane is a pretty intense experience, you can quickly become task saturated, especially when arriving or departing a busy airport. And those planes are vastly less complex than an airliner. No matter how much automation you add to them, the pilot still must be able to manage and track everything.
To give an example of what might happen if an airliner went to single pilot ops, there are multiple well documented crashes of complex single engine private aircraft. These high performance business planes have similar complexity to an airliner, but large amounts of automation allowing legal single pilot flight. Each of those crashes involved a failure of automation, followed by the pilot becoming rapidly task saturated and then losing control. Crew Resource Management was developed in response to crashes, and multiple crews have attributed their success during emergencies to CRM. Nothing good could possibly come from going single pilot for commercial aviation!
You're talking about flying a 'dumb' airplane without the automated systems that would obviously need to be developed, tested, and verified before this sort of single pilot operation is approved for use. We're many many many many years away from that. FD is scaremongering here because of the economic threat it faces to pilots and has had to reduce himself to conspiracies about how airbus and easa are murderous rather than what they are - just working on developing possibly viable possibly not future tech. 100 years ago you wouldn't dream about having a fully automated train - you wouldn't have less than 2 people in the cab normally. now, fully automated trains are the norm. are trains the same as planes? obviously not. but the idea that the tech shouldnt be developed in principle and then evaluated objectively are bullshit rent seeking by FD on behalf of paid pilots.
@@ac583Tell that to the thousands of airline pilots that have families to feed. It’s easy for you to talk about how great all of this “innovation” is, because it doesn’t affect you financially.
"I find an AI that is reliable 90% of the time far more dangerous than an AI reliable only 50% of the time. Because with time, humans making used of the one reliable 90% of the time will put it in command of much more critical services without checking what it is actually doing, until each of its failures become catastrophic every time."
My dad's a pilot, just small time stuff, and having helped out in preflight checks and prep for flights, there's no way crude AI means squat when it can't even handle driving. You simply can't replace pilots with anything less than a human-but-a-computer. Too much danger when you have 100+ lives at risk for those on board, and however many hundreds below near any crash site.
What about all the accidents caused by pilots? I think the computers can do way better than humans. But we have a mindset to forgive a human, not a machine in case of error.
The issue with subjects like this is people form an opinion “I feel like the computers can do better than humans.” Yet they don’t know the tasks, subtasks, etc involved in the entire task.
Can a computer hold altitude for 6 hours straight better than a human? Yes. Can it interpolate incomplete data about various unforeseen risks and quickly determine the safest course of action? No. Can it quickly determine that its best chance is to land off airport? No.
Let your opinion be formed by the facts as they are, as addressed in the video. The high level tasks, such as responding to an emergency and formulating a new plan in light of all available information, is currently best achieved by a two pilot crew.
@@flightdojo My guess is that most emergencies that can occur on airliners require pilots to stick to step based emergency procedures, preferably without too much improvising. Computers are already far more better doing this. (eventually AI will also be better at improvising) My concern is you take away redundancy flying with one pilot as in "let's remove a backup hydraulic system cause it's way cheaper"
I honestly believe in this new system it would save more lives, to many errors in cockpits that cause many deaths
Sounds like shareholders are more important than the saftey of the public
@guyk2260 sounds like they pulled a boeing and paid off the agency set up to keep them in check
@guyk2260 yeah but a fang fang could show up on their front porch lol jokes aside a single pilot can do unspeakable things on purpose when left alone
Because they want to get rid of one out of two jumpseats, and produce a system that in the future can safely land an aircraft if all three pilots are incompasitated? Meanwhile no flight uses two cabin jump seats, and it's quicker to go to a toilet closer, making that a safer idea.
@Right-Is-Right can only imagine the lawsuits forced to used restrooms with coworker will create lol
It sounds like you've bought FD's scaremongering and unfounded conspiracies hook line and sinker.
I see some of the comments in for this video, a bit surprised TBH.
Nah Mate, good on ya for making this video! It is so true that us general public so often hear about planes being computer controlled & how little input is from the pilots. For the longest time I had been confused because I know that pilots still undergo years of rigorous training & have to be certified & maintain those certifications etc. That is in contradiction to the belief that people have about the supposed minor input from pilots.
I'm with you on this one. Also kind of mind boggling to see that people can't seem to fathom that big time companies would put profits over safety & wellbeing of customers. It's not just history rhyming, it's bloody repeating itself. Good on you for speaking out!
Yeah mate we hear that “planes fly themselves” nonsense all the time from people who haven’t the slightest idea how to fly one. Years ago when this was allowed I took my father-in-law to work and he sat up in the cockpit with us. After the flight, which was in bad weather and high terrain, he said “I had no idea what you did for a living” and I said “yeah dad you thought I sat in a comfy chair doing nothing except occasionally ringing a bell to get the girl to bring us a cuppa yeah?” And he said “pretty much.” Everybody who knows nothing is pretty confident they know, but they don’t.
Any one with enougth knowledge and capable to see how the world is today can rezlie, the bpolitician and big corpos dont care about the general public, i mean the elecction of the US president show us that, they prefer to continue declining as long as they continue at the top the bottom can all disapear for all they care.
Airbus with only seen what happen to Boing should inmidiatly discard all these programs, but looks like the desire for profit is such a powerful drug that not even seen that Boing is at the border of bankrupt and yet it doesnt matter
The examples of two pilots working together to solve a critical problem are good ones. What is not recorded however, are times like this, that happen every day :
“climbing through 18,000 feet the captain forgot to re-set his altimeter to 29.92. The first officer said something like “yo skipper, you going to switch to standard?” and the captain said “oh yeah, thanks” and set his altimeter correctly. Half an hour later they passed an opposite-direction flight, safely spaced 1000’ apart and NOTHING HAPPENED because everyone’s altimeter was set correctly. Never recorded.
Banal shit like this happens all the time. A team is able to check each others’ work. A missed procedure is caught. An accident doesn’t happen. This shit happens EVERY DAY and never factors into “statistics” because nothing happens. The reason nothing happens is that we check each others’ work.
I love Airbus, but if this ever happens, I'll have to stop flying altogether lol
In unrelated news drones can now land themselves on aircraft carriers at sea.
At no point in this video did I question whether a program can land an aircraft. What it can’t do is plan and reason and handle big picture tasks. That’s my point.
@@high-velocitymammal5030 they are unmanned so no crew is at risk, only deckhands should be on the lookout. Nice playlist of music. Subscribed.
I think the main application is reducing the size of the crew for long haul flights. Obviously they hope to expand it to single pilot ops from takeoff to touch down, but I just don't see how that'd go anywhere for a long time. Maybe some day when the systems have proven themselves, but we aren't there yet, and I don't even see how we'd get there with what's out there today.
Nobody but nobody is talking about doing this with "what's out there today." FD is deliberately mischaracterizing the situation and scaremongering on behalf of pilot unions.
Let's remember why Boeing complicated the equipment on the 737 max models? In order to satisfy the demands of the companies to have a new plane for which pilots already certified on the 737 do not need additional authorization. Boeing did not do this out of their own will, and honestly this option complicates the manufacturing process of the plane. In the same way, removing a pilot from the cabin imposes an additional expense for the development of systems and equipment capable of reducing the work of the remaining pilot. So Airbus aligns itself with the requirements of transport companies.
Outstanding video. Your summary at the end was spot on.
Feel like this is somewhat the same reason astronauts don't launch on starship
Well, at least a toilet won't deliberately fly an airliner into a mountain because it's depressed.
Unless it's a Japanese toilet. Those things are so advanced they can...errr...theyre as advanced as an instrument panel. They even have an instrument panel. 😁😜😉
@@Sajuuk German wings was tragic, but you argue we should remove all pilots as a result? Hilarious.
@@flightdojoRight? One or two tragic human accidents don't sully the amazing safety record of the pilot - copilot system
@@flightdojo Do you not understand humour? And where is my argument we should remove all pilots? Are you high or just stupid? The only hilarious thing here is your low IQ.
Get a life, asshole 😂🤦🤷
@@m.streicher8286 And you, you equally stupid sycophant. You're just as fucking lacking in intellectual capacity. 😂
@@flightdojo Since 1960, there have been t least 428 commercial aviation incidents resulting in loss of life that were directly attributed to pilot error, and that's only the ones I can easily find documentation for.
I cannot find any documentation whatsoever of an autopilot failure resulting in loss of life. If you can, I will contemplate my stance on the relative safety of automatic systems as opposed to human pilots.
Welcome back!
Money is the world's biggest problem.
Nuts. You gotta wonder if mckensey associates have been over to make some recommendation's. Its stupid seeing that they already have a backlog they can't complete fast enough.
Also if you have 1 pilot, really you have just an inspector to take charge in a situation where the AI flight system has failed. Literally what happens if your pilot is taken ill during flight? How the hell do you do an emergency checklist and fly at the same time?
Reading some of the comments is funny cause they haven't watched beyond 1 minute x)
Like most controversies there is no hard right or wrong. Nuance and context is key. But what I would say as a Check Airman with 32 years in the game and 20+ years on airbuses, narrow and wide body, is that as good as automation has become, such systems are not infallible. They can and do fail. And an appropriately selected, trained and experienced human can often work around such systems failures. (I’ve had to). And yes the planes have become easier to operate, but it’s not always the case with abnormals or emergencies. Especially with many younger pilots who’ve come on to the heavy metal without the traditional progression that builds instincts and common sense. Itself a symptom of greedy bonus driven executives who see cadet F/O’s as a money saving, pilot shortage side step. I myself would never trust my family to a pilotless airliner, and would have serious doubts with a single pilot airliner. Sh*t happens as they say, and when the computers fail (along with so called back ups), experience and basic skills matters.
Fascinating, enlightening and compelling in equal measure...🤔
Tesla‘s auto pilot and FSD has saved many times more people than it has hurt. No Tesla automation isn’t just for its own sake.
And scientists say Earth has intelligent life.
assuming this is a comment to suggest that my presentation isn't accurate, other than just proving you're a tech fetishist, do you have any data or studies to support your stance?
I cited several official studies and myself have over 5000 hours as a 121 airline pilot. I was just wondering if you had a better insight into the subject than me if you'd like to share your knowledge?
Also.. another of my 2cents on this subject. I have sweet FA knowledge about being a pilot. Having said that I don't think it is a coincidence that all this is coming to a-head when there is this zeitgeist ATM of being anti expert. Distrust in people learning in specialized areas, science, medicine, economics, engineering etc. is being fostered by the "big wigs of society". Not to get too political, but yeah, it's not a coincidence that the attitude towards pilots & other specialties is on the decline & people assuming that we can just "technology" our problems away. You are correct when you say that this is NOT just an issue in the airline industry but almost all industries (across the board) & we also see it in our social institutions.
Distrust in anyone with a field in expertise of any kind.
Pilots can chose their actions, even in circumstances they have never encountered before. Artificial intelligence relies on pre-programming, which is fine if every possible situation is programmed into it. Humans have freedom to be creative, chose their actions (free will), whereas programs, by definition must follow the program.
The DC10 example you use is an example where free choice and creativity came up with a procedure that no pre-programming would have arrived at. For a start, computers need situational awareness, and how is that possible when sensors are destroyed as in QF32 out of Singapore. The underlying false premise of full automation is that computers can think and make creative choices in an infinite set of circumstances they were never programmed for.
All about money. Two pilots works. AI is as much hype as reality.
But if it's a good toilent - and it can fly a plane...
You repeated a number of times that the push for single pilot operation is an example of Airbus greed to reduce their (Airbus) labor costs. You should follow up with how single pilot operation will reduce Airbus's costs enough to justify the massive amount of R&D and engineering required to implement this level of automation.
Did you consider this is a drive by the airline customers to reduce their own operating costs and Airbus is reacting to market demands?
@@davidinman3542 of course it’s ultimately airlines striving to reduce overhead. However if Airbus builds it, the culpability is on them.
Is that a Boeing 747 in the thumbnail?
I love youtube because sometimes it shows you gems. This aint it tho. What a bunch of misleading details.
Explain how this is misleading.
@@flightdojo No.
The certification regulations require that any failure which could lead to a hull loss must be shown to be extremely improbable which means less than 1 chance in a billion. A human being doesn’t meet that standard so a single pilot airliner is a no pilot airliner. Since the ability for the ground to direct the airplane will be essential that means you have to have a datalink that allows control of the aircraft from the ground. Which means that datalink must be unbearable and unhackable to the 1 in a billion standard. That doesn’t exist and the power of AI to replace a pilot will also mean that same AI can be employed to hack into an aircraft’s control system and bring it down.
You also can’t account for black swan events. Like the Continental 757 operating overwater at night with one engine driven generator Inop. Then mid flight the second engine driven generator failed. This left the APU generator handling the whole load until it too failed. The RAT deployed as it should to provide the last line of defense but since they were having a bad day it too failed to function leaving them on battery power alone. If that’s an AI driven aircraft it crashes. But with two experienced humans at the controls they managed the crisis and landed it safely.
I will also add that in my last 18 years flying the 320 series I’ve seen multiple times where we had to adopt new procedures because an “impossible failure” happened. In those cases experienced pilots were able to save the day. What does an AI system do when presented with a malfunction it has been programmed to believe is impossible?
agree 1000%
How do the people responsible for these SNAFU's actually sleep at nite, I personally couldn't but then there are suspect humans who can with no problems which doesn't say much for their morals, or credibility!
Agree 100%
I'd prefer a computer to a drunk pilot, or one overly tired, or one that has fake documentation.
Yes, the unprecedented safety statistics are surely representative of incapable pilots who need replaced.
Removing a jump seat, which is NOT a point of access to controls, and installing a pax seat or a toilet, does NOT delete a pilot seat. If that is what you are saying, you are full of it and probably need that toilet yourself. Either reassess your description and facts or take this twaddle down.
@@tedsmith6137 it’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying during emco as it’s proposed, the only remaining pilot will be expected to use the toilet and not be at the controls. Therefore, no one will be at the controls. Understand the situation before crying in the comments.
The title is: they are removing a Pilot (true) and adding a toilet (true).
@@flightdojoExcept that was not the proposal, that was the pushback to the proposal. Which was wrong, because the proposal was for very short flights to possibly have a single pilot, if they could prove all the safety systems worked, including the aircraft being able to locate a suitable airport, declare an emergency to flight safety oops, and land safely. Which over the few years would be built and checked, again and again, with two pilots at the controls
Essentially it is a proposal, to possibly have rules in the future, that would allow investment in the system to today.
At leat at the end of the video he was kind of honest.
@@flightdojo Ah, so you admit to being misleading. Was it dishonesty or poor language skills?
Airbus shills inbound!
Boeing and Airbus try not to endanger their passengers and crew challenge (impossible)
The solution for the emergency that Flight 232 had came from one man. Granted, he didn't have his hand on the controls but that doesn't prelude the crew in control from coming up a solution (seethe Gimli glider or the BA flight that went through the ash cloud over tge Philippines). Nir does it mean that a properly programmed computer coupd come up with solutions.
Show me an ai that could decide to land in the Hudson.
@flightdojo ah, the exception that proves the rule. Air France Flight 447 proves that human pilots don't always work together and fail to recognise the danger they are in and effectively invalidates your argument for having multiple pilots being more effective than one pilot.
This video brought to you by Boeing
Watch the video. I address Boeing.
If indeed Airbus trajectory to single pilot is correct this needs to be acted on by US and UK authorities.
Also passengers should refuse to fly on single piloted airliners.
Yea sure. That’s your last way to try to propup boeing…
@@G_de_Coligny not sure what you’re talking about. I go after Boeing in the video too. Maybe watch it?
Captain s log
I was commercial pilot to age 52 , gave up flying in ,on airlines with introduction and experience of DEI , this idea is probably safer !
The research would suggest it is most definitely not safer.
@@flightdojoWhat research? The pushback is against rule changes to allow research. You have got the wrong end of the stick here, all pushed by people that want to restrict research to protect their union from falling income, because the research could lead to less pilots, therefore less union members. Always look at motivation behind what is said, then work from there. Maybe read the proposal on rule changes, and the rule changes. It is all about research, oh and getting rid of one out of two jumpseats that is never used on most flights.
@ it says in the EASA documents that they acknowledge the benefit is reducing flight time credits.
The research is already being conducted. There is no push back against research. The unions are pushing against rulemaking before the research is complete.
Literally almost not of your rebuttal is accurate.
"gave up flying in ,on airlines with introduction and experience of DEI " in other words you got drunk, got fired, and blamed in on some random black person. you people are so cringe.
@@flightdojo bullshit. this "rulemaking therefore it's happening" argument that you are making is utter bullshit. basic guideline rulemaking can be made for AI cars even before they are finalized or even started. Notice how neither you nor the ALPA guy go into the details of that 'rulemaking.' Because what's there is rudimentary, cautious, and meant to encourage (and in some cases for the interest of safety) innovation. We have rules for drugs that don't exist yet and that might never exist. Your whole spiel from about the 1:30 mark of the video for the next 20-30 seconds or so is so obviously dishonest that you've lost all credibility. EASA and AIRBUS are two of the world players that have most contributed to drastic improvements in aviation safety over the last few decades. for you to demonize them as profit-hungry-mass-murderers is so dishonest it's beyond words. Let them innovate.
Clearly click-bait. None of this is true
Yes it is. Watch the video?
A bit of a misleading title ... Have Boeing stocks recovered yet? 🎉🎉🎉
Care to share how anything I said at all is bs? Any verifiable facts? Industry experience? Didn’t think so
@flightdojo apologies, have to adjust, it's not bs in its entirety, but the title is very misleading, I take it back. Interesting topics, just a bit over the top with the title
The businessmen are selling your lives at the cost of a first officer. A couple bucks per seat.
The technology WILL NEVER replace the safety level of two pilots.
I agree with everything flight dojo is passing on here. I have had multiple power plant failures, a couple fires, and smoke and fumes events. Managing these events alone would not have always worked.
I will never get on an airliner without two pilots. -major air line captain.
Remind me, how many commercial aviation incidents in the last 25 years have been due to pilot error? And how many have been due to automatic systems malfunctioning?
Obviously you didn’t watch the video. I address this in it.
@@flightdojo You most certainly did not. You gave a textbook examples of whataboutism.
@@jamesharding3459 the simple reason why its high is due to Pilots being the last line of defense, there are considerably more times Pilots have saved an aircraft, the issue is at how the data is presented
@ Tell me you don’t understand statistical analysis 🤡
Whom are you? Boeing's new PR?
Watch the video. I discuss boeing
OK, an aircraft can't tell if there is an emergency vehicle on the runway, because a car can't? That's your argument against building a system, where that would be information is put a not a future safety system for aircraft, by airtrafic controllers? You don't want understand that getting rid of one of two jumpseats, reduces the ability of having one emergency pilot at hand by zero, because there is still one jump seat?
I get why you see it as dangerous, you swallowed lies I stead of looking at the paperwork that you put on the screen for everyone to see.
@@Right-Is-Right nobody swallowed lies. You seem to be on board with automation replacing pilots so please link me a single study that corroborates those claims. There are none.
I reemmber an episode of may dai may dai, that in a brand new boing 767, that those were the first to replace the fly engineer, and in that fligth the plane run out of fuel, because the trucks that refuel the plane, work with punds and the sistem work with kilograms, in the past the fky engineer do all the math and convertion rates, now is the sistem that do it and the computer was not operational and give the math to the pilot and co pilot who are not train to do the conversion.
So the plane take off half fuel, now we have more automation, and it is easy blame the pilot than the persons tha build and computers.
Is easy said lets bring more robots so the big company save money, worst is that the jobs that we eliminate are level enrty jobs, so we have more people specialy young wiouth jobs, but now even important jobs, later what, robots in operation rooms, drones in war, we are detaching more and more of the humanity, and all so big corpos win more money,
and to think that there are those who argue that the profit-maximizing system is the correct path for humanity, and don't even benefit from the profits.
I don't think single pilot operations will have any real effect on safety. However it will eliminate peoples jobs and make the jobs of the remaining people a lot harder and that is outrageous. First they eliminated the flight engineers now they want to eliminate the FO. Cutting jobs is not acceptable. Especially good paying jobs like these. I'm a merchant mariner and the same shit is happening in our industry. If you eliminate all the jobs then you won't have any customers anymore because no one will have a job and working some low paying job isn't going to result in a customer because when you can barely make ends meet your not going to be taking trips be them on an aircraft or a ship, and your not going to be buying stuff ether so that will reduce the freight as well. This crap is happening in all kinds of industries, how many jobs can you eliminate before the entire economy collapses?
if you can fly with 1 pilot, you can fly with no pilots. How are you doing an emergency check list and flying? or how are you going to fly when the pilot is ill? Airbus propose a pilot on hot standby in a remote location - ready to take over if needed.
I was an aircraft mechanic for over 50 years. Between Boeing & Airbus, I'll take Boeing every time. It's much easier to work on but more importantly, it requires less work.
Capitalism
Except for take off and landing, most of the time, the aircraft is controlled by the AutoPilot. Single pilot operation only make sense for short distance flight, where the crew don't even need to go to toilet because the flight will end before they feel the need to answer nature call.
Keep the pilots and ditch the cabin crew. Like seriously, what do they really do? Waitresses on an airborne bus are just not needed. In the event of a crash they are of no help anyway. They are just there to sell peanuts to obese muppets that cannot go two hours without eating crap.
It's inevitable. Technology moves inexorably forward. There will be more and more cockpit automation.
Thank Goodness Airbus have never had any Computer Problems...... Oh hang on 🪦
Have Boeing stocks recovered yet? Boeing is complete shxte nowadays which has very little to do with Airbus computers ... 🎉🎉🎉