The European Aviation Safety Agency says even the most modern airliner flight decks aren’t smart enough to act as pilots so it’s backing off creating regulations to allow for single-pilot operations. In a report released Friday, the agency said it’s pausing its investigation into new regs until the electronics are brought up to the level of safety achieved by having two human pilots on the flight deck in all phases of flight. Before it will reconsider regs for extended Minimum Crew Operations (eMCO), EASA says flight decks have to have systems in place for workload management, pilot health and status, security threat awareness and various autonomous safety backups. Each one of those systems will have to be exhaustively tested before getting in the air with passengers.
The decision effectively slams the brakes on work toward a policy framework for single-pilot ops. Rather than starting a rulemaking process for eMCO, it’s made consideration of new rules part of its “smart cockpit” definition and development. It’s not clear how big an impact this will have on the potential implementation of single-pilot ops since airframers are already working on the tech that EASA says is missing. Nevertheless, the news will undoubtedly be welcomed by pilot unions, which see the efficiency the regulators and airframers say they’re trying to achieve as a direct threat to air safety and their jobs. Capt. Tanja Harter, president of the European Cockpit Association, said her group will continue to campaign against any crew reduction attempts. “Two qualified, well-rested pilots—four eyes, two brains—is a system that works,” she said.
After reading the article, the movie “Dumb and Dumber” comes to mind.
Yippee! I’ll no longer need two spark plugs per cylinder or two magnetos. And that pesky electric backup fuel pump can go away, too. Spoiler alert … I will NEVER get onto an airliner with one pilot … EVER!
What about SMS? It’s the Europeans that pushed this nonsense into ICAO. How can any government agency justify single pilot airline ops within any SMS? Good thing someone came to their senses about this even though for the wrong reason!
I bet a lot of people feel that way. And I think 121 ops are different from 135. I am getting on a 135 air taxi scheduled in a couple weeks. I wouldn’t unless I believed in their systems.
I would be interested in a long wager. When exactly would you predict domestic 121 scheduled passenger aircraft (with 90 or more seats) will be hauling paying passengers with only one flight crew? Pick a number. You could pick 50 years if you like, but then we’ll want to escrow the prize as I will not likely live that long.
I’m with Larry, I’d feel better with two up front – dog optional.
Such a shame. EASA should outline exactly what is required and go ahead, in the interest of safety. There are too many mishaps that wouldn’t have happened with a computer at the controls. Too many humans are stupid, drugged, tired, confused, distracted, suicidal, … Drones have proven that autonomous works just fine, today. Now look forward a few years and forget your pity personal interest for a second. The benefits are many. Obviously we start with freighters for a few years. I wouldn’t hesitate to fly a super-automated aircraft, I may even prefer it. And let’s do the same w ATC : what a silly way to be guiding traffic flows. And yes : even there humans cause or contribute to mishaps. I don’t get why the pilot community, training to trust the proof they see on their panel, are so blinded by their wallets when it comes to automation. Follow the accident trails, then ask yourselves : are we always part of the solution, or are there too many cases where we were a part of the problem ? Humans are fallible, passengers deserve better.
Computers, built and programmed by fallible humans, are even more fallible. My day job is in support of high-end computers and would never trust my life to a fully-autonomous car or plane. Passengers deserve better.
Commercial flight is for airlines and air taxis; maybe 5000 in the US and that many again around Earth. Private flights around 250,000 private aircraft in the US do not require, I repeat, do not require two pilots. So mixing commercial and private flight operations is highly erroneous and offensive. Go get some FAR training, please. Ultralight aircraft in the US have their own FAR part 103; which can only be single pilot operation. I call this, wake up!!! EASA are the European experts. So they know everything I have stated here. Why do not you know? Everything starts with knowing the rules, which you apparently do not. Or the title EASA Pulls Back on Single-Pilot Ops is for commercial flying only, I repeat only. Making these distinctions in talking about flight a necessity. Otherwise, you are spreading disinformation; nothing uglier.
Terry, I fail to comprehend. My apologies.
EASA has stated, that single pilot cockpits are not currently considered as a sustainably safe option for todays commercial air carrier cockpit.
Where do you connect this to Part 103, which does not even exist in EASA jurisdiction?
Please study the FAA FARs. The US system is divided into two parts: commercial which includes air taxi; and private, everything else. To my knowledge, EASA does it the same way. Meaning what was stated, applies only to commercial aircraft and air taxi. Not to the private aircraft market which is the by far the largest part of the market. 5000 commercial operations in the US vs 250,000 private aircraft; which are two different markets regulated differently. All private aircraft in the US are certificated under parts: 21; 23; 24; and 103; with ultralight aircraft under part 103. Light sport aircraft, private aircraft, have their own FAA part, but I would need to look it up.