News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by nradov on Friday November 29, 2024 @09:56PM (#42279026)
Single pilot is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting. Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help. The higher risk level might be judged acceptable for cargo flights but I think it will be a long time until automation makes it viable for scheduled passenger flights.
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by JumpCrisscross on Friday November 29, 2024 @10:03PM (#42279051)
> When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting

This argument was made for each of those now-obsolete roles. I'd want to see data before concluding there is a benefit to a second person on checklists. In reality, that advantage would only manifest if the captain is inexperienced, self-check systems have failed and the radio/remote ops have failed.

> Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help

Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by dghlsakjg on Friday November 29, 2024 @10:31PM (#42279158)
> Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?

Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents.

More importantly I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground. Or flights where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid. Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by JumpCrisscross on Friday November 29, 2024 @10:48PM (#42279222)
> Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents.

Not a great argument for a second pilot unless the second pilot never goes to the bathroom. The human factors involved in Germanwings 9525 didn't randomly occur during the flight, they specifically occured while the co-pilot was in the bathroom.

> Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that

Between the reliability of piston engines versus jets to the experience of someone with a PPL versus ATP, this comparison includes far more variables than number of pilots.

> I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground

I can do that for any value of N. The question is what the ratio is between N = 1 and N = 2, and how that has changed with evolving automation.

> where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid

Not really an argument for a second pilot either...

I'm not saying we have the evidence to say a single pilot is sufficient. I'm arguing that nothing you've brought up shows it's critical. That said, I'm sure we'll wait until another aviation authority pioneers the way. American aviation ceded the first-mover position decades ago.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by thaumasiotes on Saturday November 30, 2024 @12:28AM (#42279749)
> Not a great argument for a second pilot unless the second pilot never goes to the bathroom. The human factors involved in Germanwings 9525 didn't randomly occur during the flight, they specifically occured while the []pilot was in the bathroom.

While that's true, it is a good argument for a third pilot.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by JumpCrisscross on Saturday November 30, 2024 @05:31AM (#42280789)
> it is a good argument for a third pilot

To stop one crash in decades amidst hundreds of thousands of flights per day [1]? If you place that high of a value on a human life, there are better optimisations to do first at much lower cost.

[1] https://financesonline.com/number-of-flights-worldwide/

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by thaumasiotes on Saturday November 30, 2024 @05:44AM (#42280835)
That's a different argument about the third pilot.

I'm just pointing out that while my parent was correct that the argument failed as a justification for two pilots, it doesn't fail for any other number. It's similar to the proof that all horses are the same color.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by JumpCrisscross on Saturday November 30, 2024 @06:02AM (#42280900)
> while my parent was correct that the argument failed as a justification for two pilots, it doesn't fail for any other number

It doesn't fail as much as not work. One can always come up with hypotheticals justifying more redundancy. Whether that's worth the tradeoff requires actually looking at the facts.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by dghlsakjg on Sunday December 01, 2024 @12:34AM (#42286445)
One of the changes from germanwings is that a third crew member must remain in the cockpit in the event that one of the pilots leaves for any reason.
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by dghlsakjg on Saturday November 30, 2024 @09:30AM (#42281809)
> Not a great argument for a second pilot unless the second pilot never goes to the bathroom. The human factors involved in Germanwings 9525 didn't randomly occur during the flight, they specifically occured while the co-pilot was in the bathroom.

One of the changes from that incident is that there is always a second person in the cockpit. If a pilot needs to leave the cockpit for some reason, a second crew member must come in and ensure that the pilot flying doesn’t lock the other pilot out.

As to the rest of the argument: the whole point is that two pilots is safer than one by a very large margin. We eliminated engineers, radio operators and navigators because we know have systems that do that better than a human. We do not yet have systems that do the job of pilot as well as a human. Commercial autolanding has existed since the 1960s but there are still situations where the pilot has to land the plane. We aren’t there yet.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by rootusrootus on Friday November 29, 2024 @10:19PM (#42279106)
> Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?

I don't think that's a strong argument. The only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected. Planes so rarely have excitement occur at that phase of flight that the odds are really low of it happening at the exact moment one of the pilots is using the head.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by JumpCrisscross on Friday November 29, 2024 @10:22PM (#42279118)
> only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected

Planes don't have something go wrong to the point of running checklists in an expected way.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by seanmcdirmid on Saturday November 30, 2024 @12:38AM (#42279808)
You’d think they were already investigating the use of automation in emergencies. Like going through checklists, debugging situations in real time, etc…it seems like an area where AI could actually be useful beyond current auto pilot/landing tech.
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by sofixa on Saturday November 30, 2024 @04:02AM (#42280488)
It's just a bunch of if conditions, no need for AI. The problem is that sometimes something not planned in those if conditions happens, and then you need deduction and high knowledge of physics and the aircraft systems.
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by dzhiurgis on Saturday November 30, 2024 @05:17AM (#42280758)
You just killed a Copilot
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by JumpCrisscross on Saturday November 30, 2024 @05:30AM (#42280784)
> something not planned in those if conditions happens, and then you need deduction and high knowledge of physics and the aircraft systems

This is an argument for offloading checklists to an automated system. Not having more pilots to run more checklists.

Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by sofixa on Saturday November 30, 2024 @09:08AM (#42281707)
On modern planes there is a very high degree of automation already. But it's a fine balance, because too complex automations can be confusing or unpredictable to the pilots. There are a few crashes due to pilots not understanding/fighting with automation.
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by dzhiurgis on Saturday November 30, 2024 @05:15AM (#42280748)
But then there are so many crashes where having 2 pilots was kinda the cause of crash...
Re:TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains by nradov on Monday December 02, 2024 @04:34PM (#42300673)
How many crashes?