Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:07 pm

scbriml wrote:
People probably said the same when navigators were removed from the cockpit. Then again when flight engineers were removed....


You will find a lot of airlines actually had pilots doing the navigator and engineer roles, this is where new hires were often placed to learn the ropes before they got a window seat.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
kalvado
Posts: 3158
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:10 pm

AntonioMartin wrote:
My question is...imagine the sole pilot goes "German Wings", decides to lock the cockpit and the co-pilot can't get there or take control fast enough? That's why I would push against this. Not only would the passengers die but the airline and Airbus would be hit with major lawsuits..from that point of view the entire idea seems crazy.

An automatic system to summon resting pilot in case of emergency is a must. we're talking cruise, so significant unplanned change of airspeed, flight level or deviation from flightplan should result in just that.
As for suicidal events - Atlas crash showed that a pilot doing crazy things (intentionally or not) couldn't be countered by two other guys on a flight deck. So better mental health control may be an answer anyway.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:12 pm

scbriml wrote:
Not to mention you can buy cars today that are a whisker away from being fully autonomous.


This isnt true, and most of it comes from the CEO of Tesla, you will find their autopilot developers directly and openly contradicting him over this. Tesla is still a L2 autopilot, a long way from the L5 required for autonomous driving.

If you look at this very recent report https://guidehouseinsights.com/reports/ ... ng-systems Tesla is actually at the back of the pack for autonomous driving technology.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19927
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:24 pm

AirKevin wrote:
My point being in the two incidents you listed, there WASN'T another pilot in the flight deck to prevent that from happening.


That is precisely my point - even though those were multiple pilot flights, a determined person was still able to deliberately crash the plane. Even in a situation where the other pilot doesn't need to leave the cockpit, what's to stop the determined person from incapacitating the other pilot? Their presence is nothing much more than a mild deterrence to a determined person.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:26 pm

scbriml wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
My point being in the two incidents you listed, there WASN'T another pilot in the flight deck to prevent that from happening.


That is precisely my point - even though those were multiple pilot flights, a determined person was still able to deliberately crash the plane. Even in a situation where the other pilot doesn't need to leave the cockpit, what's to stop the determined person from incapacitating the other pilot? Their presence is nothing much more than a mild deterrence to a determined person.


That may be true logically, but that will not be the perception amongst insurers and the traveling public.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19927
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:29 pm

zeke wrote:
This isnt true


You're missing my point. I can buy a car today that will maintain itself in the lane, with adaptive cruise control for the motorway and with automatic braking that will also (in the right circumstances) activate the hazard lights. This was in relation to the Greyhound bus with an incapacitated driver scenario - the technology exists today where that bus could be brought to a safe stop.

Context.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19927
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:31 pm

zeke wrote:
scbriml wrote:
People probably said the same when navigators were removed from the cockpit. Then again when flight engineers were removed....


You will find a lot of airlines actually had pilots doing the navigator and engineer roles, this is where new hires were often placed to learn the ropes before they got a window seat.


I'm not sure what difference that makes to my point - people often oppose progress.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7779
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:35 pm

Witness this, as to regulatory action,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461911

The Federal AVIATION Administration is blocking a train to an airport because the funding comes from aviation taxes. Nothing in aviation happens fast.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:38 pm

hivue wrote:
I'm not sure I take your point. In any event, that part of my post you didn't quote -- the part about single pilot cruise needing to be accepted as being as reliable as single engine operation for 5 1/2 hours -- was my point. I'm not saying that can be done. But it seems to me to be a good benchmark. I think that's the heart of what we are discussing in this thread. I can accept that a properly trained and certified pilot with a valid current medical may not be as reliable as a properly designed, tested, and maintained engine used in an ETOPS 330 operation if that's the conclusion.


MH370 disappeared in an area which had line of sight VHF communication, ATC RADAR, ATC Datalink, flew over populous land masses yet no one was able to track or contact the aircraft, and even today we dont know where it is.

The A350 in cruise goes over many places that cannot sustain human life, that is why the maximum theoretical EDTO number is so high, and some of those areas there is no line of sight VHF communication, no satellite communication, no radar, no ATC datalink, nowhere to land.

Very very few airlines would have the highest EDTO capability approved, the simple reason for that is it is expensive, you actually have to pay Airbus extra for the additional equipment to achieve that. You will find many aircraft that are theoretically ETDO capable not ETDO approved to reduce purchasing, maintaining, and operating costs. In comparison our cruise relief pilots are only paid around US$50k per year.

I have flown many aircraft over my career, including some that were certified for single pilot, my employer at the time actually operated the aircraft with two pilots as it was cheaper to have two pilots than to have a singe pilot and an autopilot. Any such single pilot upgrade on the A350 will not be free, and even if you pay for the upgrade, its up to the regulators for every country you fly over to approve an airline to do it, they control what is permitted in their airspace.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:38 pm

scbriml wrote:
zeke wrote:
scbriml wrote:
People probably said the same when navigators were removed from the cockpit. Then again when flight engineers were removed....


You will find a lot of airlines actually had pilots doing the navigator and engineer roles, this is where new hires were often placed to learn the ropes before they got a window seat.


I'm not sure what difference that makes to my point - people often oppose progress.


Progress is relative in the context of defined benefit. The technology exists for nearly everyone in the G8 to do away with utilities and generate power at home - yet that is not the norm by any means.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:41 pm

zeke wrote:
hivue wrote:
I'm not sure I take your point. In any event, that part of my post you didn't quote -- the part about single pilot cruise needing to be accepted as being as reliable as single engine operation for 5 1/2 hours -- was my point. I'm not saying that can be done. But it seems to me to be a good benchmark. I think that's the heart of what we are discussing in this thread. I can accept that a properly trained and certified pilot with a valid current medical may not be as reliable as a properly designed, tested, and maintained engine used in an ETOPS 330 operation if that's the conclusion.


MH370 disappeared in an area which had line of sight VHF communication, ATC RADAR, ATC Datalink, flew over populous land masses yet no one was able to track or contact the aircraft, and even today we dont know where it is.

The A350 in cruise goes over many places that cannot sustain human life, that is why the maximum theoretical EDTO number is so high, and some of those areas there is no line of sight VHF communication, no satellite communication, no radar, no ATC datalink, nowhere to land.

Very very few airlines would have the highest EDTO capability approved, the simple reason for that is it is expensive, you actually have to pay Airbus extra for the additional equipment to achieve that. You will find many aircraft that are theoretically ETDO capable not ETDO approved to reduce purchasing, maintaining, and operating costs. In comparison our cruise relief pilots are only paid around US$50k per year.

I have flown many aircraft over my career, including some that were certified for single pilot, my employer at the time actually operated the aircraft with two pilots as it was cheaper to have two pilots than to have a singe pilot and an autopilot. Any such single pilot upgrade on the A350 will not be free, and even if you pay for the upgrade, its up to the regulators for every country you fly over to approve an airline to do it, they control what is permitted in their airspace.


Not an aside or anything - but I would like to meet the western-educated person who can live in HK on $50K. The average small business company employee salary there is just a tad lower than that.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:04 pm

scbriml wrote:
I'm not sure what difference that makes to my point - people often oppose progress.


Not always, I am all for sound engineering advancements that improve safety outcomes, these are done with all stakeholders having the views considered and sound risk assessments. Patrick Ky is an air traffic controller, he failed before in eurocontrol to implement single skies, and now working for EASA this is his new pet project. Regulators and governments around the world make poor engineering decisions every day of the week, and many kill people in the name of cost cutting or meeting a budget. It often takes years for these failures to become evident, in the meantime they have moved on from office.

I would wager the majority of people on this thread have no aviation related qualifications or experience, and it shows in the points being raised. Virtually none of them are approaching this as safety critical risk assessment mindset.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:13 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Pilot incapacitations happen but are relatively rare, on the order of 1e-6 per flight hour. Uncontained engine failures are similarly uncommon. For ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, an IFSD rate of less than 1e-6 per flight hour must be demonstrated - and that includes mostly benign and contained failures.

The probability of the two occuring simultaneously within any given 15-minute window is less than 1e-12. There are other potential catastrophic failures that are much, much more likely.


Pilot incapacitations are actually fairly frequent, the statistics show the majority of them occur due to food or drink consumed, next highest area is laser attacks.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:25 pm

btfarrwm wrote:
The only recent accident I can think of that occurred due to a mechanical/technical issue at cruise is AF447. Having two (and eventually 3) pilots in the cockpit didn't save that plane.


We often look to outcomes which are unfavorable when discussing changes like this and forget about the good outcomes. I can cite example like the two recent 777 events with the P&W engines that happened in cruise, both of which would not have been survivable if it was single pilot. I can also think of a KC135 wake vortex incident where two engines departed the airframe, that would also have been unsurvivable if it had been single pilot.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:33 pm

zeke wrote:
btfarrwm wrote:
The only recent accident I can think of that occurred due to a mechanical/technical issue at cruise is AF447. Having two (and eventually 3) pilots in the cockpit didn't save that plane.


We often look to outcomes which are unfavorable when discussing changes like this and forget about the good outcomes. I can cite example like the two recent 777 events with the P&W engines that happened in cruise, both of which would not have been survivable if it was single pilot. I can also think of a KC135 wake vortex incident where two engines departed the airframe, that would also have been unsurvivable if it had been single pilot.


There was also the NW 744 rudder incident that was resolved with the involvement of all crew, including relief pilots. Cannot imagine that going well single pilot.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:47 am

kalvado wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Single-pilot for cruise. Where probability of such events is pretty low.
This may actually help with overall safety as entire setup would require resting pilot to enter cockpit without delay while the other guy is busy. Would be interesting how security would be addressed.

So what happens if, as you said, the one pilot might not have a spare hand to open the door.
kalvado wrote:
some interesting piece of history: once upon a time you were part of the group defending NOT ADDING an extra safety feature (lidar for ramp operations) saying that safety is already full swing and some. Now you oppose the change in the other direction?

The what for ramp operations? Not sure what you're talking about, you've obviously got much better memory than I do.

Extra hands? Same thing as happened before. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... nose-dive/

So you're fine with pilots sending the plane into a nose dive? Now I'm confused. The Captain of United 1175 stated that he never took his hands off the yoke or thrust levers because he wasn't taking any chances, and one of the other pilots actually had to strap on his shoulder harness for him. So if a repeat of United 1175 happens, you only have one pilot, and that pilot doesn't want to take the chance of removing hands from the yoke (stick?) or thrust lever, who opens the door.
kalvado wrote:
And I am talking about this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1415723

I had a look at that thread, and I wasn't advocating for anything, simply just asking questions. I wasn't seeing how having sensors all over the aircraft was going to prevent a pushback accident.
kalvado wrote:
Moral of the story is still the same - existing procedures are always a result of some compromise, if not knee-jerk reactions. Some of those - if not all - have unexpected consequences. Sweet spots of efficiency - and understanding of those spots - change over time. So changes should happen, and they do happen.

I think the real question becomes is the change a good thing or is it going to cause more problems.
Captain Kevin
 
kalvado
Posts: 3158
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:41 am

AirKevin wrote:
kalvado wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
So what happens if, as you said, the one pilot might not have a spare hand to open the door.

The what for ramp operations? Not sure what you're talking about, you've obviously got much better memory than I do.

Extra hands? Same thing as happened before. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... nose-dive/

So you're fine with pilots sending the plane into a nose dive? Now I'm confused. The Captain of United 1175 stated that he never took his hands off the yoke or thrust levers because he wasn't taking any chances, and one of the other pilots actually had to strap on his shoulder harness for him. So if a repeat of United 1175 happens, you only have one pilot, and that pilot doesn't want to take the chance of removing hands from the yoke (stick?) or thrust lever, who opens the door.
kalvado wrote:
And I am talking about this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1415723

I had a look at that thread, and I wasn't advocating for anything, simply just asking questions. I wasn't seeing how having sensors all over the aircraft was going to prevent a pushback accident.
kalvado wrote:
Moral of the story is still the same - existing procedures are always a result of some compromise, if not knee-jerk reactions. Some of those - if not all - have unexpected consequences. Sweet spots of efficiency - and understanding of those spots - change over time. So changes should happen, and they do happen.

I think the real question becomes is the change a good thing or is it going to cause more problems.

Let me put it so - if such news made it to the public, there was probably some thought put into the question. Not a few minutes of armchair professionals time, but weeks of true professionals. They think about these changes and new technologies for a living, they do have a clue about do-s and don't-s, problems and approaches.
I wouldn't trust a closed-door decision, especially if it came from Boeing - but here we're talking about something to be discussed and analyzed by many people well in advance. It is OK to be skeptical, moreover - questions must be asked. But they may also be answered within the same process. And I assume there was more than one round of such discussions in Touluse.

Cockpit door issues, while a messy hot topic, should be solvable in terms of safety and security. Emergency access by resting pilot without cockpit help is a must, let's see how the security aspect of it can be implemented. I can see a few options.
In terms of a single pilot ops - well, this is not a true single-pilot situation. The question is not if a single person can handle emergencies throughout, it is about being able to stabilize the situation for a few minutes. FO of UA1175 did communications mostly, starting those 2 minutes later would not change the outcome. Again, I wonder what Airbus has in terms of autopilot capabilities - 350 is some 20 years newer than 777, and control systems changed quite a bit over those 20 years. Would that play a role in stabilizing emergencies? I would think so, and I am sure airbus engineers know those answers.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:44 am

zeke wrote:

I think pilot shortages is what is driving this, so many people have left the industry for good during covid. The public dont see it as there isnt that much flying going on, I know from colleagues in other companies a lot of very experienced people have left the industry because of dumb government regulations. You will see a push for single crew in the cruise, and extension of pilot retirement ages to 75 or beyond.


It’s not a pilot shortage it’s a pay and conditions shortage. Offer a defined path into the industry with subsidised training and good pay and contract and you’ll never have a pilot shortage.

The biggest negative aspect to this to me is that being a pilot is a skill, you cannot just read a bunch of books and pass a test and then your good to go. Flying with two crew is actually on the job training for future commanders.


Thanks for mentioning that. A lot here seem to believe that long haul operations are just like MS Flight Sim, engage an A/P to an FMC and go away and make coffee and watch Netflix.

There’s significant differences in the nature of long distance passenger airline flying compared to even short/medium haul flying that you really can’t comment on unless you’ve experienced it in a pilot’s seat for a significant period of time, and to which it would make it incredibly unlikely this will ever happen. I can tell pretty much everyone here commenting has never actually done this job they think is so easy to automate because they come out with comments like this:

kalvado wrote:
An automatic system to summon resting pilot in case of emergency is a must. we're talking cruise, so significant unplanned change of airspeed, flight level or deviation from flightplan should result in just that.


Have you ever been abruptly woken up in a Stage 3 slow wave deep sleep? Your muscles won’t work properly for several minutes, motor function will be limited for about 10 minutes and it’ll take another 10-15 minutes for full cognitive function to return after that. Caffeine won’t work for another 15-30 minutes. Yet you expect that upon receiving this alarm a pilot will, within 5 seconds, jump out of bed from a deep sleep, hop straight into a control seat and handle an emergency with ease? Add to that the sleep environment is less than optimal (noise, hydration) which throws extra problems in, in addition to the effect of long term sleep disruption.

So no, you won’t be at a cognitive alertness level to deal with a complex problem for 0.5-1hrs after a deep sleep, which is why in long haul airline operations there’s restrictions on when each of the two pilot crew come on and off duty, as well as allowance for time to reach an optimal alert state. Which anyone would know if they had substantial experience in long haul flying.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:56 am

sierrakilo44 wrote:
zeke wrote:

I think pilot shortages is what is driving this, so many people have left the industry for good during covid. The public dont see it as there isnt that much flying going on, I know from colleagues in other companies a lot of very experienced people have left the industry because of dumb government regulations. You will see a push for single crew in the cruise, and extension of pilot retirement ages to 75 or beyond.


It’s not a pilot shortage it’s a pay and conditions shortage. Offer a defined path into the industry with subsidised training and good pay and contract and you’ll never have a pilot shortage.

The biggest negative aspect to this to me is that being a pilot is a skill, you cannot just read a bunch of books and pass a test and then your good to go. Flying with two crew is actually on the job training for future commanders.


Thanks for mentioning that. A lot here seem to believe that long haul operations are just like MS Flight Sim, engage an A/P to an FMC and go away and make coffee and watch Netflix.

There’s significant differences in the nature of long distance passenger airline flying compared to even short/medium haul flying that you really can’t comment on unless you’ve experienced it in a pilot’s seat for a significant period of time, and to which it would make it incredibly unlikely this will ever happen. I can tell pretty much everyone here commenting has never actually done this job they think is so easy to automate because they come out with comments like this:

kalvado wrote:
An automatic system to summon resting pilot in case of emergency is a must. we're talking cruise, so significant unplanned change of airspeed, flight level or deviation from flightplan should result in just that.


Have you ever been abruptly woken up in a Stage 3 slow wave deep sleep? Your muscles won’t work properly for several minutes, motor function will be limited for about 10 minutes and it’ll take another 10-15 minutes for full cognitive function to return after that. Caffeine won’t work for another 15-30 minutes. Yet you expect that upon receiving this alarm a pilot will, within 5 seconds, jump out of bed from a deep sleep, hop straight into a control seat and handle an emergency with ease? Add to that the sleep environment is less than optimal (noise, hydration) which throws extra problems in, in addition to the effect of long term sleep disruption.

So no, you won’t be at a cognitive alertness level to deal with a complex problem for 0.5-1hrs after a deep sleep, which is why in long haul airline operations there’s restrictions on when each of the two pilot crew come on and off duty, as well as allowance for time to reach an optimal alert state. Which anyone would know if they had substantial experience in long haul flying.


Or anyone who has been to an HR symposium on fatigue effects on productivity ;)

But yes, the above is a serious concern. The flippant remarks here are pretty astounding. As I say, it would be far easier to just cut cost at the C-level.

I'll just quote here from the Wiki article on NW85, to illustrate the point you're making. Imagine monitoring single pilot, way out of your originating time zone, and handling this rudder hardover event alone until your groggy compatriot arrives still trying to fully awaken for 10-15 minutes:

The incident occurred at 5:40 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time, around seven hours into the flight.[4] At the time of the incident, Junior Captain Frank Geib and First Officer Mike Fagan had just taken control of the aircraft, allowing Senior Captain John Hanson and First Officer David Smith to rest.[5] Flight 85's captain said that the event occurred at flight level 350 (35,000 feet/11,000 meters).[1]

The aircraft abruptly entered a 30- to 40-degree left bank.[1] Geib initially believed that an engine failure had occurred. Hanson reentered the cockpit and continued to fly the aircraft by hand with Fagan. Geib declared an emergency and began a diversion to Anchorage.[5] While the crew tried to declare the emergency, the plane was in a communications dead zone between North America and Asia. Even with a weak signal, the crew contacted another Northwest Airlines flight, Flight 19, which helped Flight 85 declare the emergency as it was closer to Alaska.[6] Flight 85's captain reported that none of the emergency procedures available could correct the problem.[1] The pilots established a conference call with Northwest Airlines at the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, but the employees there were unable to find a solution to the sudden bank.[5] The flight crew took back control of the aircraft and landed at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. To steer the aircraft, they had to use the ailerons and asymmetric engine thrust, applying more engine power to one side than the other.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest ... _Flight_85
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:45 am

For all the posters mentioning flights that had flight control issues and how a single pilot couldn't deal with them: The A350 is a fully FBW aircraft (including the rudder). Those accidents are not applicable to the aircraft. There's nothing the pilots can do that the computers couldn't do. If you look at the accident history of Airbus FBW there has never been an accident where pilots had to 'fight' the aircraft. There's only wires between the cockpit and the actuators.

Although there are many issues to discuss when it comes to single pilot ops, there are some that simply aren't applicable to the A350.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:14 am

3rdGen wrote:
There's nothing the pilots can do that the computers couldn't do.

Although there are many issues to discuss when it comes to single pilot ops, there are some that simply aren't applicable to the A350.


Be very careful about making a prediction that a new piece of technology will be infallible and inevitable:

1955: "Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within 10 years." — Alex Lewyt, President of the Lewyt Vacuum Cleaner Company.

1959: "Before man reaches the moon, your mail will be delivered within hours from New York to Australia by guided missiles. We stand on the threshold of rocket mail." — Arthur Summerfield, U.S. Postmaster General.

There's nothing the pilots can do that the computers couldn't do.


For one land in over 25kts of crosswind. Maybe you should've rethought that comment before you made it.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:29 am

3rdGen wrote:
For all the posters mentioning flights that had flight control issues and how a single pilot couldn't deal with them: The A350 is a fully FBW aircraft (including the rudder). Those accidents are not applicable to the aircraft. There's nothing the pilots can do that the computers couldn't do. If you look at the accident history of Airbus FBW there has never been an accident where pilots had to 'fight' the aircraft. There's only wires between the cockpit and the actuators.

Although there are many issues to discuss when it comes to single pilot ops, there are some that simply aren't applicable to the A350.


From a risk management perspective, this is a pretty hubristic attitude. For one, a simple Google search reveals a white paper authored by a senior Airbus test pilot on the necessity for crews to be well practiced in high altitude, high Mach number manual flying for the rare situations where normal pilot aids and control law are unavailable.

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/high-alt ... al-flying/

But, again as a passenger, I at the same time require that these same pilots have all the manual flying skills that we have discussed and which they require to face up to failure cases where the piloting aids are no longer available, whether at high or low altitude.

These two requirements are contradictory only in appearance. Indeed, even as is the case in many airlines, the pilots are authorized to manually fly aircraft under certain conditions. During commercial flights, they could never fly manually at high altitude due to the RVSM rules, or under degraded flight control laws for obvious reasons, which deprives them of all knowledge of the reactions of their aircraft under these conditions.


If such failure conditions are impossible and can simply be managed by software in all cases, there's no need for the above opinion.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:01 am

3rdGen wrote:
For all the posters mentioning flights that had flight control issues and how a single pilot couldn't deal with them: The A350 is a fully FBW aircraft (including the rudder). Those accidents are not applicable to the aircraft. There's nothing the pilots can do that the computers couldn't do. If you look at the accident history of Airbus FBW there has never been an accident where pilots had to 'fight' the aircraft. There's only wires between the cockpit and the actuators.

Although there are many issues to discuss when it comes to single pilot ops, there are some that simply aren't applicable to the A350.


I mentioned above the two recent 777 incidents with P&W engines that were saved by crew actions, that is a FBW aircraft, there is a difference between FBW and the autopilot. The limits of autopilot control is a smaller than the FBW limits, when autopilot limits are reached, they disengage and then it’s up to the pilot.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:21 am

zeke wrote:
Pilot incapacitations are actually fairly frequent, the statistics show the majority of them occur due to food or drink consumed, next highest area is laser attacks.

Depends on your definition of frequent, I suppose. The highest numbers I can find state that up to 4% of pilots experience medical issues each year. If the average pilots flies 1000 hours per year, you'd expect an incapacitation rate of 4e-5 per hour, or 1e-5 per 15 minutes. Other studies show far lower numbers down to 5e-7 per hour.

That's common enough that a pilot can easily experience the situation once or even a few times in their career. It's definitely frequent enough to require two pilots at all times for current aircraft, and even with this new system I expect that a second pilot is on board - just not necessarily in the cockpit.

Yet, the combined probability that a pilot falls ill and a major failure like on QF32 occurs is very slim.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:04 am

mxaxai wrote:
zeke wrote:
Pilot incapacitations are actually fairly frequent, the statistics show the majority of them occur due to food or drink consumed, next highest area is laser attacks.

Depends on your definition of frequent, I suppose. The highest numbers I can find state that up to 4% of pilots experience medical issues each year. If the average pilots flies 1000 hours per year, you'd expect an incapacitation rate of 4e-5 per hour, or 1e-5 per 15 minutes. Other studies show far lower numbers down to 5e-7 per hour.

That's common enough that a pilot can easily experience the situation once or even a few times in their career. It's definitely frequent enough to require two pilots at all times for current aircraft, and even with this new system I expect that a second pilot is on board - just not necessarily in the cockpit.

Yet, the combined probability that a pilot falls ill and a major failure like on QF32 occurs is very slim.


The ATSB did a 5 year study and found the incapacitation rate was 1 in every 32000 departures (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768970/a ... -final.pdf), with close to 40 million departures per year pre covid (https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx) one would expect 3-4 flights a day on average to have pilot incapacitation.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Noshow
Posts: 2495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:30 am

A second pilot in the cockpit is available to optimize the course and altitude for lowest fuel consumption and to negotiate things with ATC, saving cost and adding safety. It remains to be seen how costly all the additional data networks (satellite costs) automation and ground stations will be compared to keep a proven established system.
And something else: Today's first officers are the future captains. Halving the pilots will "cut off" future captains and take away their place to learn from experiences others have made before.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:35 am

zeke wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
zeke wrote:
Pilot incapacitations are actually fairly frequent, the statistics show the majority of them occur due to food or drink consumed, next highest area is laser attacks.

Depends on your definition of frequent, I suppose. The highest numbers I can find state that up to 4% of pilots experience medical issues each year. If the average pilots flies 1000 hours per year, you'd expect an incapacitation rate of 4e-5 per hour, or 1e-5 per 15 minutes. Other studies show far lower numbers down to 5e-7 per hour.

That's common enough that a pilot can easily experience the situation once or even a few times in their career. It's definitely frequent enough to require two pilots at all times for current aircraft, and even with this new system I expect that a second pilot is on board - just not necessarily in the cockpit.

Yet, the combined probability that a pilot falls ill and a major failure like on QF32 occurs is very slim.


The ATSB did a 5 year study and found the incapacitation rate was 1 in every 32000 departures (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768970/a ... -final.pdf), with close to 40 million departures per year pre covid (https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx) one would expect 3-4 flights a day on average to have pilot incapacitation.


Very interesting is the actual cause why the pilot could not continue his duty (or only partially).

Nr.1 is Gastrointestinal Ilness by far
Nr.2 is Laser strike
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:48 am

FluidFlow wrote:
zeke wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Depends on your definition of frequent, I suppose. The highest numbers I can find state that up to 4% of pilots experience medical issues each year. If the average pilots flies 1000 hours per year, you'd expect an incapacitation rate of 4e-5 per hour, or 1e-5 per 15 minutes. Other studies show far lower numbers down to 5e-7 per hour.

That's common enough that a pilot can easily experience the situation once or even a few times in their career. It's definitely frequent enough to require two pilots at all times for current aircraft, and even with this new system I expect that a second pilot is on board - just not necessarily in the cockpit.

Yet, the combined probability that a pilot falls ill and a major failure like on QF32 occurs is very slim.


The ATSB did a 5 year study and found the incapacitation rate was 1 in every 32000 departures (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768970/a ... -final.pdf), with close to 40 million departures per year pre covid (https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx) one would expect 3-4 flights a day on average to have pilot incapacitation.


Very interesting is the actual cause why the pilot could not continue his duty (or only partially).

Nr.1 is Gastrointestinal Ilness by far
Nr.2 is Laser strike


Not too surprising. Pretty hard to do any kind of work requiring concentration when you're running to the can every 15 minutes.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:50 am

zeke wrote:
The ATSB did a 5 year study and found the incapacitation rate was 1 in every 32000 departures (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768970/a ... -final.pdf), with close to 40 million departures per year pre covid (https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx) one would expect 3-4 flights a day on average to have pilot incapacitation.

This data agrees with mine. If the average flight length in the ATSB survey was only 1 hour, you'd get a rate of 3e-5 incapacitations per flight hour.

For the system that Airbus and CX are developing, there's still a second pilot on board. The automated system would only need to be in control for long enough (15 minutes apparently) until the resting pilot can return to his seat. Situations where high workload is expected - take-off and landing - would have two pilots in the cockpit anyway.

The chance of a major systems failure and pilot incapacitation happening simultaneously is extremely small. After all, it is equally possible that both pilots get blinded by lasers and an engine or two fail, yet that is not a concern for most people.

I agree that true single-pilot ops are not safe enough (yet). Single-pilot cruise, on the other hand, seems achievable.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:00 pm

mxaxai wrote:
zeke wrote:
The ATSB did a 5 year study and found the incapacitation rate was 1 in every 32000 departures (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768970/a ... -final.pdf), with close to 40 million departures per year pre covid (https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx) one would expect 3-4 flights a day on average to have pilot incapacitation.

This data agrees with mine. If the average flight length in the ATSB survey was only 1 hour, you'd get a rate of 3e-5 incapacitations per flight hour.

For the system that Airbus and CX are developing, there's still a second pilot on board. The automated system would only need to be in control for long enough (15 minutes apparently) until the resting pilot can return to his seat. Situations where high workload is expected - take-off and landing - would have two pilots in the cockpit anyway.

The chance of a major systems failure and pilot incapacitation happening simultaneously is extremely small. After all, it is equally possible that both pilots get blinded by lasers and an engine or two fail, yet that is not a concern for most people.

I agree that true single-pilot ops are not safe enough (yet). Single-pilot cruise, on the other hand, seems achievable.


Achievable...of course - wise in terms of risk management? Perhaps not. That's the point of debate.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:03 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
zeke wrote:

The ATSB did a 5 year study and found the incapacitation rate was 1 in every 32000 departures (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768970/a ... -final.pdf), with close to 40 million departures per year pre covid (https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx) one would expect 3-4 flights a day on average to have pilot incapacitation.


Very interesting is the actual cause why the pilot could not continue his duty (or only partially).

Nr.1 is Gastrointestinal Ilness by far
Nr.2 is Laser strike


Not too surprising. Pretty hard to do any kind of work requiring concentration when you're running to the can every 15 minutes.


What would have been the really interesting info: Is the cause food/drinks consumed before departure (private time) or actually the meals/drinks served during the flight/while being on duty.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:06 pm

When you travel all the time and change places, time zones, climates, move within foreign crowds and hotels and eat their fast food on the go you cannot avoid upsetting your stomach once in while.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:13 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
I agree that true single-pilot ops are not safe enough (yet). Single-pilot cruise, on the other hand, seems achievable.


Achievable...of course - wise in terms of risk management? Perhaps not. That's the point of debate.

I meant, of course, achievable and certifiable with the same level of risk that we're comfortable with today.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3158
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:14 pm

zeke wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
zeke wrote:
Pilot incapacitations are actually fairly frequent, the statistics show the majority of them occur due to food or drink consumed, next highest area is laser attacks.

Depends on your definition of frequent, I suppose. The highest numbers I can find state that up to 4% of pilots experience medical issues each year. If the average pilots flies 1000 hours per year, you'd expect an incapacitation rate of 4e-5 per hour, or 1e-5 per 15 minutes. Other studies show far lower numbers down to 5e-7 per hour.

That's common enough that a pilot can easily experience the situation once or even a few times in their career. It's definitely frequent enough to require two pilots at all times for current aircraft, and even with this new system I expect that a second pilot is on board - just not necessarily in the cockpit.

Yet, the combined probability that a pilot falls ill and a major failure like on QF32 occurs is very slim.


The ATSB did a 5 year study and found the incapacitation rate was 1 in every 32000 departures (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768970/a ... -final.pdf), with close to 40 million departures per year pre covid (https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx) one would expect 3-4 flights a day on average to have pilot incapacitation.

If you read carefully, most of these incapacitations are not instant heart attacks, but a more trivial diarrhea. Not that I am surprised given my personal experience during the trips.
Which again should allow waking up resting pilot - at least for proposed system.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10819
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:19 pm

kalvado wrote:
AntonioMartin wrote:
My question is...imagine the sole pilot goes "German Wings", decides to lock the cockpit and the co-pilot can't get there or take control fast enough? That's why I would push against this. Not only would the passengers die but the airline and Airbus would be hit with major lawsuits..from that point of view the entire idea seems crazy.

An automatic system to summon resting pilot in case of emergency is a must.

Ok, in watching the Air Disasters on the Smithsonian channel, we had the Geman Wings and a carrier in Africa where the second pilot was locked out of the cockpit, would these a/c be equipped with an override mechanism from outside or the removal of the deadbolt feature from inside the cockpit ensuring that there was always external access?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:48 pm

par13del wrote:
Ok, in watching the Air Disasters on the Smithsonian channel, we had the Geman Wings and a carrier in Africa where the second pilot was locked out of the cockpit, would these a/c be equipped with an override mechanism from outside or the removal of the deadbolt feature from inside the cockpit ensuring that there was always external access?

You would have to weigh the risk of a suicidal pilot against the risk of a suicidal passenger, FA or terrorist that could gain unauthorised access. As you note, even today pilots can create situations where they can lock out the other pilot.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16085
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:52 pm

mxaxai wrote:
This data agrees with mine. If the average flight length in the ATSB survey was only 1 hour, you'd get a rate of 3e-5 incapacitations per flight hour.


The data you pointed to before seemed to only look at medical events which would normally disqualify a pilot from holding a medical. The vast majority of incapacitations are of a temporary nature.

FluidFlow wrote:
What would have been the really interesting info: Is the cause food/drinks consumed before departure (private time) or actually the meals/drinks served during the flight/while being on duty.


In my experience it’s mainly due to hotel food, water, and showers on layovers. Can be as simple as ingesting some water during a shower.

kalvado wrote:
If you read carefully, most of these incapacitations are not instant heart attacks, but a more trivial diarrhea. Not that I am surprised given my personal experience during the trips.
Which again should allow waking up resting pilot - at least for proposed system.


Incapacitation is not a loose bowl movement, it is more serious and reportable incident. The pilot is then banned from participating in the remainder of the flight under published requirements. Their medical is also suspend, and must undergo a formal medical procedure to be cleared back to work.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
jayunited
Posts: 3500
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:12 pm

3rdGen wrote:
For all the posters mentioning flights that had flight control issues and how a single pilot couldn't deal with them: The A350 is a fully FBW aircraft (including the rudder). Those accidents are not applicable to the aircraft. There's nothing the pilots can do that the computers couldn't do. If you look at the accident history of Airbus FBW there has never been an accident where pilots had to 'fight' the aircraft. There's only wires between the cockpit and the actuators.

Although there are many issues to discuss when it comes to single pilot ops, there are some that simply aren't applicable to the A350.


The 777 is a FBW aircraft and it took more than 1 pilot to save two different PW 777s when those fan blades sheer off during flight.

Also I would suggest you go to YouTube and watch the interview the captain of the United flight gave on the flight between SFO-HNL. It is a long video, over an hour long but in it he states the NTSB, FAA, and UA all tried to recreate the successful landing of that aircraft in simulator using only the computers, but each and every time they ran the simulation the flight failed to make HNL because computers run calculation and make sound decisions based off those calculations. However no computer can replace a human beings will, and at one point the captain stated he was prepared to die but he then remembered he had 366 passengers lives in his hands and he thought of his family as well and what should have resulted in a crash in the Pacific Ocean resulted in a safe landing at HNL because the pilots had refused to surrender and give up but the computer no matter how many times these agencies ran the simulations always ended in a crash in the Pacific.

In a life or death situation I'd rather have human beings at the control who will at the very least fight to survive and not have a computer that doesn't understand the will to live or the gravity of the situation that there are actual human beings lives in its hands and it should always fight for life not make a decision based off calculations that could result in your death.

Watch the complete interview on YouTube it will give you a whole new appreciation for having human beings on the flight deck making decisions when your life is on the line.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11865
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:28 pm

jayunited wrote:
3rdGen wrote:
For all the posters mentioning flights that had flight control issues and how a single pilot couldn't deal with them: The A350 is a fully FBW aircraft (including the rudder). Those accidents are not applicable to the aircraft. There's nothing the pilots can do that the computers couldn't do. If you look at the accident history of Airbus FBW there has never been an accident where pilots had to 'fight' the aircraft. There's only wires between the cockpit and the actuators.

Although there are many issues to discuss when it comes to single pilot ops, there are some that simply aren't applicable to the A350.


The 777 is a FBW aircraft and it took more than 1 pilot to save two different PW 777s when those fan blades sheer off during flight.

Also I would suggest you go to YouTube and watch the interview the captain of the United flight gave on the flight between SFO-HNL. It is a long video, over an hour long but in it he states the NTSB, FAA, and UA all tried to recreate the successful landing of that aircraft in simulator using only the computers, but each and every time they ran the simulation the flight failed to make HNL because computers run calculation and make sound decisions based off those calculations. However no computer can replace a human beings will, and at one point the captain stated he was prepared to die but he then remembered he had 366 passengers lives in his hands and he thought of his family as well and what should have resulted in a cash in the Pacific Ocean resulted in a safe landing at HNL because the pilots had refused to surrender an give up but the computer no matter how many times these agencies ran the simulations always ended in a crash in the Pacific.

In a life or death situation I'd rather have human beings at the control who will at the very least fight to survive and not have a computer that doesn't understand the will to live or the gravity of the situation that there are actual human beings lives in its hands and it should always fight for life not make a decision based off calculations that could result in your death.

Watch the complete interview on YouTube it will give you a whole new appreciation for having human beings on the flight deck making decisions when your life is on the line.


Also want to point out FBW aircraft are not impervious to “flight control” issues.

FBW just means there is not direct mechanical linkage between the flight controls and surfaces. But the flight control surfaces on FBW still have mechanical motion and motors. It’s rarer, because they are simpler, but it can still happen. There is nothing about a FBW aircraft that prevents a rudder, aileron, elevator, flap, etc from jamming, breaking, getting damaged, whatever. And the computer has no issues giving full control to the pilots and making them deal with it if it does not trust it’s data or the aircraft is not behaving as expected.

FBW aircraft still have hydraulic systems, power control units, and what not. It’s just an electronic signal that is activating them as needed, not a direct cable.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:55 pm

Ufsatp wrote:
flight152 wrote:
Ufsatp wrote:

As a passenger, I am all for it.


Why would any sane passenger be for this? Do you like the idea of degraded safety margins in the name of higher corporate profit margins?


I honestly do not see it as a degraded safety margin. While the pilot unions might want to sell you that line, it just isn’t there.


So you believe a transport category aircraft with three hydraulic systems isn’t safer than utility category aircraft with one?
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:59 pm

zeke wrote:
scbriml wrote:
I'm not sure what difference that makes to my point - people often oppose progress.

I would wager the majority of people on this thread have no aviation related qualifications or experience, and it shows in the points being raised. Virtually none of them are approaching this as safety critical risk assessment mindset.


Excellent summation, and worth the quote.

Threads like this often frankly separate the anoraks from the enthusiast and both from the experts.

That includes engineers who seem to lack a systems view of the system for which they are building.

To be charitable, these threads will run for pages parallel with “XYZ Airline computer outage grounds flights for hours!” threads without a hint of irony.
 
AABusDrvr
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:07 pm

Just one more reason to look forward to retirement.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14977
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:15 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
zeke wrote:
scbriml wrote:
I'm not sure what difference that makes to my point - people often oppose progress.

I would wager the majority of people on this thread have no aviation related qualifications or experience, and it shows in the points being raised. Virtually none of them are approaching this as safety critical risk assessment mindset.


Excellent summation, and worth the quote.

Threads like this often frankly separate the anoraks from the enthusiast and both from the experts.

That includes engineers who seem to lack a systems view of the system for which they are building.

To be charitable, these threads will run for pages parallel with “XYZ Airline computer outage grounds flights for hours!” threads without a hint of irony.


Bravo sir, that last sentence is one of the posts of the year. :yes:
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:32 pm

Polot wrote:
And the computer has no issues giving full control to the pilots and making them deal with it if it does not trust it’s data or the aircraft is not behaving as expected.

Though past incidents would suggest that this sudden handover can be quite disastrous if the pilots aren't prepared for it. Regardless of the number of pilots on board, I think aircraft would be safer if their computers were better at identifying and mitigating errors themselves.

A lot of research has gone into methods how faulty equipment can be detected automatically, especially for satellites and space probes but also other autonomous systems. A faulty attitude sensor, for example, could make a satellite point the wrong side towards the sun and overheat.

For crewed aircraft, the fallback if an error is detected is to hand over to a pilot (e. g. if the pitot tubes or AoA vanes disagree). For satellites, 'safe modes' exist that work with a reduced set of sensors, actuators or computers. These usually have more robust control laws but sacrifice performance. They keep the system safe until a human can find a proper solution to the problem. A similar soft handover design should lead to safer aircraft.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4883
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:41 pm

sierrakilo44 wrote:
zeke wrote:

I think pilot shortages is what is driving this, so many people have left the industry for good during covid. The public dont see it as there isnt that much flying going on, I know from colleagues in other companies a lot of very experienced people have left the industry because of dumb government regulations. You will see a push for single crew in the cruise, and extension of pilot retirement ages to 75 or beyond.


It’s not a pilot shortage it’s a pay and conditions shortage. Offer a defined path into the industry with subsidised training and good pay and contract and you’ll never have a pilot shortage.

The biggest negative aspect to this to me is that being a pilot is a skill, you cannot just read a bunch of books and pass a test and then your good to go. Flying with two crew is actually on the job training for future commanders.


Thanks for mentioning that. A lot here seem to believe that long haul operations are just like MS Flight Sim, engage an A/P to an FMC and go away and make coffee and watch Netflix.

There’s significant differences in the nature of long distance passenger airline flying compared to even short/medium haul flying that you really can’t comment on unless you’ve experienced it in a pilot’s seat for a significant period of time, and to which it would make it incredibly unlikely this will ever happen. I can tell pretty much everyone here commenting has never actually done this job they think is so easy to automate because they come out with comments like this:

kalvado wrote:
An automatic system to summon resting pilot in case of emergency is a must. we're talking cruise, so significant unplanned change of airspeed, flight level or deviation from flightplan should result in just that.


Have you ever been abruptly woken up in a Stage 3 slow wave deep sleep? Your muscles won’t work properly for several minutes, motor function will be limited for about 10 minutes and it’ll take another 10-15 minutes for full cognitive function to return after that. Caffeine won’t work for another 15-30 minutes. Yet you expect that upon receiving this alarm a pilot will, within 5 seconds, jump out of bed from a deep sleep, hop straight into a control seat and handle an emergency with ease? Add to that the sleep environment is less than optimal (noise, hydration) which throws extra problems in, in addition to the effect of long term sleep disruption.

So no, you won’t be at a cognitive alertness level to deal with a complex problem for 0.5-1hrs after a deep sleep, which is why in long haul airline operations there’s restrictions on when each of the two pilot crew come on and off duty, as well as allowance for time to reach an optimal alert state. Which anyone would know if they had substantial experience in long haul flying.


While I don't exactly disagree with any of this, there is data available for discussing this. Most naval war ships operate with most of the crew, including the captain, at the edge of fatigue. They could probably provide good answers to how long it takes a suddenly awakened skipper to arrive on the bridge, bring himself to full situational awareness, and take command. He (or she) may decide just to observe and direct the officer of the deck. Both are in much more fatigue than about any civil pilot.

We also need to hear from an air force pilot who flies those 'invisible' planes which are totally kept in course by fully computerized systems. Of course they have ejection seats.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5505
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Sleep is pretty reliably detected by cheap fitness trackers, as motion and heartbeat. Dead-hand alertness buttons are there for ages.
Full and undivided attention may be not realistic to ask anyway, instrument scan on periodic alert, periodically confirmed by some action is probably a more realistic option.
The question is about the frequency of such false positives, there should be some (better than false negatives!). And good thing that a prototype deployed on an actual airline for some time may generate an ample amount of real-world data to tune the system without major changes to existing procedures.

Would be interesting if instead of a simple dead-head button they asked the pilot for some info gained from scanning i.e. what is the next waypoint, what is current fuel state, etc. Ideally it would be voice driven but then we get into language concerns.

There’s no language concerns. Everyone speaks English
 
User avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:18 pm

jayunited wrote:


Watch the complete interview on YouTube it will give you a whole new appreciation for having human beings on the flight deck making decisions when your life is on the line.


Yeah I've seen that video it was amazing what they did.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was not regarding the computer brain vs. the human brain and the fact that the latter is able to understand more than just ones and zeros. It is the fact that some 'older' aircraft had limitations on specifically which flight controls (I.e. actuators) the AP has control over and to what limits they could actuate them. That is the AP did not have full control over the flight controls.

In the A350 flight control architecture there is no difference in the limitations of control over surfaces between the pilot and the computers. That is, the computers can be programmed to perform any set of inputs that the pilot could make. The limitation is only how smart the software is that controls those surfaces and at which point it either isn't programmed well enough to handle the situation I.e. it doesn't make the correct inputs, or gives up.

The argument is really: can a flight control computer ever be good enough to handle every possible situation as well or better than a human could? Look, I'm not saying that it could I'm just saying: Airbus believes so, and so do others in the industry, it must if they believe in a future with autonomous aircraft. The A350 already has a vastly superior AP system to the 320/330 generation, I am sure to achieve certification Airbus will need to improve it vastly further still. However, the Dassault 10X is a test case as they are already boasting of releasing the aircraft with single-pilot operability in cruise, and have added an 'upset recovery button' which they claim can right the aircraft from an unusual attitude, as opposed to giving up and leaving it to the pilot.

It remains to be seen how vastly advanced the flt ctrl computers can become and whether tools like AI and machine learning can get it to a point where it's as good as or better than a human. I know many people will scoff at this statement. But believe it or not there are a lot of industries, enterprises and endeavors that are gambling (I.e. planning) that the progress in power and ability that computers have made since their inception will continue.

In some cases computers have surpassed humans, e.g. in speed and power to do arithmetic/math, sort data etc. It is in the more complex cognitive tasks where humans still have the edge. That's where the leaders of technology and science are focusing all their attention right now. Governments, big business, institutions, they are investing a lot in machine learning, AI etc. It's also the case that the more data is driven into these things the smarter they get. It's really the question of our age, whether we can develop something that eventually makes us obsolete.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:47 pm

3rdGen wrote:
The argument is really: can a flight control computer ever be good enough to handle every possible situation as well or better than a human could? Look, I'm not saying that it could I'm just saying: Airbus believes so, and so do others in the industry, it must if they believe in a future with autonomous aircraft. The A350 already has a vastly superior AP system to the 320/330 generation, I am sure to achieve certification Airbus will need to improve it vastly further still. However, the Dassault 10X is a test case as they are already boasting of releasing the aircraft with single-pilot operability in cruise, and have added an 'upset recovery button' which they claim can right the aircraft from an unusual attitude, as opposed to giving up and leaving it to the pilot.

It remains to be seen how vastly advanced the flt ctrl computers can become and whether tools like AI and machine learning can get it to a point where it's as good as or better than a human. I know many people will scoff at this statement. But believe it or not there are a lot of industries, enterprises and endeavors that are gambling (I.e. planning) that the progress in power and ability that computers have made since their inception will continue.

In some cases computers have surpassed humans, e.g. in speed and power to do arithmetic/math, sort data etc. It is in the more complex cognitive tasks where humans still have the edge. That's where the leaders of technology and science are focusing all their attention right now. Governments, big business, institutions, they are investing a lot in machine learning, AI etc. It's also the case that the more data is driven into these things the smarter they get. It's really the question of our age, whether we can develop something that eventually makes us obsolete.

This thread highlights the issues are mainly human ones around things such as risk acceptance, industrial practice, regulatory prerogatives, cost effectiveness, etc.

It's a truly multi-faceted problem.

Here's how I'd frame the core issue: Given we know both humans and computers aren't perfect, can we settle on a way to decide if the risk levels are equivalent, or will we continue to see a focus on one-off cases where human determination and creativity saved the day and continue to ignore the situations where automation has improved overall saefety and continue to ignore the one-off cases where human weaknesses doomed flights?

I'm not seeing the strong correlation between "we are investing in something that does X" and "we're sure that we can do X". I think a lot of the investment is "we better get in and give it a try just in case someone figures it out". Clearly companies invest in areas where the solution is unknown. If they don't figure it out, at least they are in a position to evaluate other solutions and in many cases use their resources to buy into the solution. This is for instance why companies give engineers incentives to make patents. Building the company's patent portfolio gives them a bargaining chip to use. If they don't hold the solution they can use the patent to trade for access to the solution or to undermine exclusivity claims.

As I've suggested before I'm a bit surprised EASA, Ky, Airbus, CX et al are pushing this forward with as much gusto as we see. At some level it pays to prepare the ground for such a game changing thing, but on the other hand the risk is you get yourself too far ahead of events and fail and set back the entire concept by many many years.

I think the comparison with Tesla Autopilot is apt. If you over-hype something, each failure gets picked apart and the end result very well can be disappointment. On the other hand, Tesla advocates will say we don't count all the cases where Tesla Autopilot makes better decisions than humans and thus is overall raising safety.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:39 pm

Precisely, will the number of crashes due to automation be canceled out by the number of times it saves the day due to a lack of human error/ ability. You can also find videos that show instances when the Tesla automation avoided an accident.

The technological advancements of the west would never have happened had individuals not accepted higher levels of risk than they today. I'm not saying that they should accept them now. I'm just raising a point here, that if we had 1950s level of safety in aviation today would the public accept air travel? Perhaps not, but what would the world look like today if people's in the 1950s hadn't accepted that risk and aviation was never developed beyond a hobby? Electricity killed hundreds of people when it was first introduced. People had live exposed wires hanging around their houses because they didn't understand the risk they posed.

Perhaps the low risk appetite in the west could lead to a situation where 3rd world countries move ahead as their public are more ready to accept (or are just more ignorant) of the risks associated with some advancements, in a similar fashion to the public in the west in a bygone era?
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: CX Working With Airbus on Single-Pilot System for A350 With 2025 EIS

Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:50 pm

3rdGen wrote:
I'm just raising a point here, that if we had 1950s level of safety in aviation today would the public accept air travel? Perhaps not, but what would the world look like today if people's in the 1950s hadn't accepted that risk and aviation was never developed beyond a hobby? Electricity killed hundreds of people when it was first introduced. People had live exposed wires hanging around their houses because they didn't understand the risk they posed.

People in the 50s in the USA at least accepted the risk because the alternates (rail, road and sea) also had safety issues and were much slower. Life was cheaper then (just speaking honestly), they had lived through a world war where everyone lost someone, medical/surgical/pharmaceutical science was less advanced, life expectancy was shorter. I can think of one relative who died in the 70s and another who died in the 80s who would still be alive if they had access to today's medical care. Things like cancer and heart disease used to be death sentences. They are still serious things today, but now we have many different ways to treat with much better outcomes than in the 50s or even the 80s.

Thing is the 50s was 70 years ago and we've had phenomenal advancements in safety over time. The metric is no degradation in overall safety. We've made progress and no one is going to want to walk that back. As above, the key thing is defining the metrics that need to be hit and how to measure them. Without these we are in the realm of folklore rather than science.

I don't think a different metric will apply for third world countries if major international corporations are involved. Clearly they won't want to be exposed to the obvious criticism if that's how things play out.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos