Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In other news...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In other news...

    Internet Headline: "Boeing's 797 could be built to be flown by one pilot."

    This begs a few comments:

    Evil profit-driven airlines want to eliminate the safety value of the second pilot?

    "Could be"...Very likely this is a BS-heavy, clickbait headline...I dare say it "probably won't"

    Being pedantic, but technically correct, I believe that almost all current airliners are built to be flown by one pilot...sometimes a pilot dies, (or sometimes a pilot uses the lav) and usually it doesn't result in a crash.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Internet Headline: "Boeing's 797 could be built to be flown by one pilot."
    Nonsense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Internet Headline: "Boeing's 797 could be built to be flown by one pilot."
      Link by chance?

      Being pedantic, but technically correct, I believe that almost all current airliners are built to be flown by one pilot...sometimes a pilot dies, (or sometimes a pilot uses the lav) and usually it doesn't result in a crash.
      I don't remember a single case of a crash in a plane/flight that requires 2 or more flight crew after one of them becomes incapacitated. And it is not "now". Things like the 737, DC9 or Fokker F28 have been doing revenue flights with 2 flight crew (and pilots had occasionally become incapacitated) since the late 60's.

      There have been some accidents, though very few, of both pilots becoming incapacitated due to the same reason. No specific example comes to mind right now, but I knew there were.

      Now, reduce the required flight crew to 1, and suddenly pilot incapacitation becomes a whole new dimension (as also does managing an emergency situation where today you have one pilot flying the plane and the other one troubleshooting).

      This will come someday but it will require a whole new concept of pilots on the ground being able to interact with the plane. I surely hope that the 797 will not wait for that to become a reality, because we are decades away.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Nonsense.
        Strongly disconcur...

        1. The key word is "could".

        2. I have a beer that says lots of rather expensive time has been spent to formally review and consider the possibility.

        3. You are often accused of supporting a near-100% automation philosophy- sure pilots are nice to have to reset circuit breakers or maybe do DC-10 landings after the hydraulics are drained...but do we really need them?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          QUOTE=Gabriel

          Link by chance? No. As I told Evan, the word "Could" makes it 100% true. No link needed and it's just a BS popular press article and click-bait headline.

          I don't remember a single case of a crash in a plane/flight that requires 2 or more flight crew after one of them becomes incapacitated. "Needing to use the restroom" is kind of incapacitating and I think we had two recent ones.

          There have been some accidents, though very few, of both pilots becoming incapacitated due to the same reason. No specific example comes to mind right now, but I knew there were. Helios, that dude that shot the pilots on that PSA mini C5 Galaxy
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Strongly disconcur...

            1. The key word is "could".
            As Gabriel said, unless the 797 is coming out in 2040 (which might not surprise me), even 'could' is nonsense.

            2. I have a beer that says lots of rather expensive time has been spent to formally review and consider the possibility.
            I have a beer that says a lot of rather expensive time has been spent to formally review and consider the possibility that Elon Musk can put a colony on Mars by 2025. Will it happen? No. Was it ever going to happen? No. Because it's nonsense? Yes.

            3. You are often accused...
            ...exclusively by you...

            ...of supporting a near-100% automation philosophy- sure pilots are nice to have to reset circuit breakers or maybe do DC-10 landings after the hydraulics are drained...but do we really need them?
            You are welcome to accuse me of supporting a philosophy that automation is a tool for pilots, and that it exists to reduce workload and allow safer, more precise flight control. Full stop.

            Until the distant future, we need a pilot to fly and a pilot to monitor, and when the s hits the f we need a pilot to fly and a pilot to work the problem, and when the checklists come out we need a pilot to say 'check' and a pilot to say 'check'.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              QUOTE=Gabriel

              Link by chance? No. As I told Evan, the word "Could" makes it 100% true. No link needed and it's just a BS popular press article and click-bait headline.

              I don't remember a single case of a crash in a plane/flight that requires 2 or more flight crew after one of them becomes incapacitated. "Needing to use the restroom" is kind of incapacitating and I think we had two recent ones.

              There have been some accidents, though very few, of both pilots becoming incapacitated due to the same reason. No specific example comes to mind right now, but I knew there were. Helios, that dude that shot the pilots on that PSA mini C5 Galaxy
              The Helios Airways Flight 522 in Greece comes to mind.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                The Helios Airways Flight 522 in Greece comes to mind.
                And in the private sector in business planes such as golfer Payne Stewart's ill fated flight where the pilots passed out because of improper/faulty pressurization. And another incident out of Rochester, NY in a recent year. (looked it up,2014, a Socata TBM-700)

                But guess what....... if you have a problem with oxygen/pressurization and it isn't caught or detected in time for hypoxia to set in then that third pilot passes out and dies too. So in those cases a third pilot is just another victim.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Exactly that was my point in my post. There were and are many cases of pilot incapcacitation, but never (that IO know) that resulted in a crash and never (that I know) of both pilots becoming incapacitated independently. Although there have been cases with both pilots incapacitated due to the same reason, they have been very few, and it is doubtful whether the number of pilots on board would make any difference in those.

                  Now, remove the second pilot, and suddenly all the cases of one pilot becoming incapacitated (which did I say there have been and there are many?) become major crashes in the current condition or anything remotely similar to the current conditions. A whole new set of airplanes systems and ground infrastructure needs to be developed to act as a backup in case a single pilot becomes incapacitated.

                  This will come some day, but not for the 797, hopefully. Otherwise the 797 is decades away.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Link by chance?
                    [...]
                    A brilliant question. Until today I still rather like topics which begin with a decent source. I don't try to find an apology for one of my jetphotos online friends. I tried to find some info on topic.

                    From the German wikipedia. Boeing 797. I can translate if you want. Boeing 797 is an idea for a two engined jet with a range of 8000 Kilometers, or as jetphotos seniors say,
                    not more than 4,300 nautical miles. It contains a twin aisle cabin, and the idea is that
                    the 797 substitutes the 757.

                    But the 757 is a living legend, between Chicago and my home airport I know at least 55+21+15 ... 91 (ninetyone) Boeing 757s who are in the air, for only two airlines. And, as far as I know nobody really likes to replace the flyin pencil,
                    not on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean..

                    PS: Where in the 797 de wiki has somenone mentioned that you should cross the pond with only 1 person in the cockpit?
                    At least once a year there is evidence that computers do not improve aviation, see 737 Max .

                    If you ask me, humans should be flown by humans. Always.

                    That does not necessarily include that cargo should always be flown by robots. But who cares.
                    In my eyes a 747F full of potatoes is clearly less important than a 747 full with passengers. The less humans on board the less important, if we'd follow this insane idea.

                    So, you are the only human (pilot) on board a 747 Freighter during an incident. Who makes the emercency call, you or the robot? And what happens if the robot is 'as perfect as' the 737 Max mcas.

                    And what happens if the person who invented the robot has the same idea like in the movie 'Con Air': 'Let's destroy this aircraft, there is almost nobody on board!'
                    Then you've been a pilot for the longest time of your life. And nobody sits next to you who until the very last second will try to save your life!

                    An insane idea, and in my eyes, the end of aviation enthusiasm. Or have you ever asked a robot for his favorite destination, for friendship, for an appearance in a TV report?

                    No, that indeed is nonsense.

                    You like human aviation enthusiasts, I know that. More than 2 or 12 or 120 people until today have visited my profile.
                    That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
                    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                    Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                      A brilliant question. Until today I still rather like topics which begin with a decent source. I don't try to find an apology for one of my jetphotos online friends. I tried to find some info on topic.

                      From the German wikipedia. Boeing 797. I can translate if you want. Boeing 797 is an idea for a two engined jet with a range of 8000 Kilometers, or as jetphotos seniors say,
                      not more than 4,300 nautical miles. It contains a twin aisle cabin, and the idea is that
                      the 797 substitutes the 757.

                      But the 757 is a living legend, between Chicago and my home airport I know at least 55+21+15 ... 91 (ninetyone) Boeing 757s who are in the air, for only two airlines. And, as far as I know nobody really likes to replace the flyin pencil,
                      not on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean..

                      PS: Where in the 797 de wiki has somenone mentioned that you should cross the pond with only 1 person in the cockpit?
                      At least once a year there is evidence that computers do not improve aviation, see 737 Max .

                      If you ask me, humans should be flown by humans. Always.

                      That does not necessarily include that cargo should always be flown by robots. But who cares.
                      In my eyes a 747F full of potatoes is clearly less important than a 747 full with passengers. The less humans on board the less important, if we'd follow this insane idea.

                      So, you are the only human (pilot) on board a 747 Freighter during an incident. Who makes the emercency call, you or the robot? And what happens if the robot is 'as perfect as' the 737 Max mcas.

                      And what happens if the person who invented the robot has the same idea like in the movie 'Con Air': 'Let's destroy this aircraft, there is almost nobody on board!'
                      Then you've been a pilot for the longest time of your life. And nobody sits next to you who until the very last second will try to save your life!

                      An insane idea, and in my eyes, the end of aviation enthusiasm. Or have you ever asked a robot for his favorite destination, for friendship, for an appearance in a TV report?

                      No, that indeed is nonsense.

                      You like human aviation enthusiasts, I know that. More than 2 or 12 or 120 people until today have visited my profile.

                      "In my eyes a 747F full of potatoes is clearly less important than a 747 full with passengers". Alrighty then!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        "In my eyes a 747F full of potatoes is clearly less important than a 747 full with passengers". Alrighty then!
                        And to think that's actually one of his more coherent statements.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          And to think that's actually one of his more coherent statements.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            And to think that's actually one of his more coherent statements.
                            Really ?
                            I didn’t understand a word of it.
                            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                              Really ?
                              I didnÂ’t understand a word of it.
                              But I bet you didn't understand it not as terribly as his other stuff.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X