That is amazing.
That kinda puts the DC Metroâs No Food or Drink policy in perspective.
Heh - had the same thought, lol
Edit: Related:
That plan seems super dubious with the trend of suicide by pilot airline crashes - we had one just last year. Right now it requires them to do a lot of planning and shenaniganâs to incapacitate or get the other staff out of the cockpit. Having a single pilot in the cruise phase means weâll get a lot more of China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735, Germanwings Flight 9525, or the infamous Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
But it will make more money for the airlines! Checkmate, libtard!
Industry desperate to cut costs by reducing the number of workers, but increasing worker stress and customer risk. See also: the ongoing railroad strike.
I wouldnât dismiss it out of hand. The airline industry doesnât have extraordinary profit margins, compared to the average. Personally, I find the cost of air travel to be painful.
Why donât we have three pilots on all flights? Presumably because at some point, we balance marginal extra safety against costs. If they can provide some additional means of safety (e.g., better automation, remote emergency control systems), I think it should be explored. I donât see why there should be a knee-jerk reaction of denying consideration of it.
Obviously, aviation expertsâ opinions matter, and I havenât heard any analysis on that level yet. But I feel like from just a basic human nature / how humans do stuff kind of PoV, that having a second person in the cockpit who can fly the plane is a necessity. I would be incredibly concerned about the brittleness of reaction to adversity with a single human in the cockpit. I could be convinced I suppose but I would have to see very good evidence that our future robot overlords are up to the task backed by some deep and robust real world data.
I feel like this is an argument against built-in redundancy / resiliency in any system. Why do backups? They cost money!
Yeah, so what these advocates are saying is that every time the single pilot has a health issue, and it does happen, everyone on the plane is dead. No backups.
You couldnât even get assistance to an incapped pilot or get a flight sim-loving passenger at the controls with the way the cockpit door was designed to withstand a battering ram.
And unless the incapacitated pilot slumps forward, that is a slow way to go. All passengers are trapped in the plane until it runs out of fuel, I guess.
This is a terrible, terrible idea.
Yeah, the Vatsim channel on YouTube has numerous real-world examples of pilots or co-pilots having heart attacks and dying. All within the past few years.
A completely catastrophic single point of failure that consists of a demographic that is on the ânot uncommon for that to happenâ side of the actuarial table is a terrible, terrible idea. Especially if the FAA standard for critical part failure is like 1 every trillion flight hours.
Itâs a dumb idea. They will do this and eventually a pilot will become incapacitated and the plane will crash and then the airlines will go back to two pilots.
Well, only after they re-hire them all. Itâll take months and months.
It doesnât need to be an incapacitated pilot. When things go wrong and the pilot has to both fly the plane as best he can and troubleshoot at the same time, itâs likely to come to a bad outcome very fast.
Having two pilots if other airlines have one can be a selling point, too. Iâd feel more comfortable on a flight with two pilots instead of one pilot.
I guess I am going to have to get a copy of MS Flight Sim so I can learn how to fly a plane and save my skin!
AVERAGE age of commercial pilots in the US hovers between 44 and 45 yo over recent decades.