Single-Pilot Cockpit Idea Floated in NASA Study

Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by adrianors, Dec 14, 2014.  |  Print Topic

  1. adrianors

    adrianors Silver Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    334
    Status Points:
    485
    Newscience and uggboy like this.
  2. uggboy
    Original Member

    uggboy Gold Member

    Messages:
    50,172
    Likes Received:
    133,424
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Actually I prefer 2 on board. Cheers.
     
  3. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    Passenger drones. Zero pilots.
     
  4. viguera
    Original Member

    viguera Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    6,913
    Status Points:
    4,745
    Considering the issues with 2 plus an RFO like that Asiana flight, I'd rather have 8 or 9 pilots onboard, just in case. :)
     
  5. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    Oh... a debate team!

    (a drone might have done better than the Asiana guys)
     
  6. uggboy
    Original Member

    uggboy Gold Member

    Messages:
    50,172
    Likes Received:
    133,424
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Wouldn't bet on that. The drone was constructed by humans. :oops:
     
    Newscience and gaijin62 like this.
  7. uggboy
    Original Member

    uggboy Gold Member

    Messages:
    50,172
    Likes Received:
    133,424
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Thinking about it, sounds reasonable. :)
     
    Newscience likes this.
  8. traveltoomuch

    traveltoomuch Silver Member

    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    912
    Status Points:
    795
    First consider: how would you feel about having only one engine?

    After you answer that question, consider:

    The failure modes with all engines out are pretty well understood. Pilots train for that situation. And we've certainly seen people walk away from those situations (see US1549 and Capt. Sullenberger). I worry more about the case of all pilots being disabled.

    I also suspect that pilot error (v. wholesale pilot failure) would become a more notable issue with only one in the cockpit. And people do need to take a break at some point.

    In summary: absent some very significant new automation ("the plane really can fly itself"), I want at least two people around who are competent to fly the plane.
     
  9. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    I think he/they were lucky that there was a river.
     
  10. blackjack-21

    blackjack-21 Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    3,000
    Status Points:
    1,910
    Luck plus SKILL that a drone or robot couldn't have handled. Better to have two skilled human pilots in any emergency situation. The fly-by-wire flightdecks still need humans to guide them.
     
  11. Newscience

    Newscience Gold Member

    Messages:
    14,694
    Likes Received:
    45,079
    Status Points:
    16,475
    My vote is for 2 in the front of the plane. And I'm always happy to see another pilot/co-pilot sitting with us passengers in the plane, to be transported to his/her next flight.
     
    blackjack-21 likes this.
  12. viguera
    Original Member

    viguera Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    6,913
    Status Points:
    4,745
    I think a drone could have easily figured out the situation and flown as well if not better than a human... plus you have instances like that AF flight where a computer would have (and did) figure out that there was icing on the pitot tubes and took the proper corrective action, compared the doing the completely wrong thing as is often the case with humans.

    A computer can instantly recall the procedure for engine relight, while at the same time attempting to fly the plane and figure out where they're going to end up if the current rate of descent continues. There's no panic, no hesitation and no miscalculations based on loads, visibility, sleep depravation, etc.

    I think computers are both extremely bad and terrifyingly good at risk assessment, and they should probably not be trusted with some of these decisions. Still, experience is such that you could see where a computer would not have made the same mistakes as some pilots, and in almost every case the computers have actually informed pilots of the problems and they have been ignored.

    With that said, I like to have humans in the cockpit, but that could just be because that's what I'm comfortable with so far. :)
     

Share This Page