The End Of Single Crew Commercial Flights ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, the UKCAA at it, again.
Seems to me that to require a co-pilot on a small(er) aeroplane really accomplishes only one thing (besides rapid nose picking...) and that is to make the aeroplane heavier, so that in the event of an engine failure enroute, the scene of the accident is reached sooner...
Seems to me that to require a co-pilot on a small(er) aeroplane really accomplishes only one thing (besides rapid nose picking...) and that is to make the aeroplane heavier, so that in the event of an engine failure enroute, the scene of the accident is reached sooner...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown as single pilot on piston twins and multi crew on turbine twins. I don't think the issue is really a matter of 'incapacitation', just simply that 'two heads are better than one'.
When flying a non precision approach down to minimum on a gusty windy rainy night the pressure is on, this is made safer by having someone else on the flight deck to confirm instrument and altitude settings etc. It is very easy to make a mistake on your own, a lot harder to do when another pilot is watching over you.
Personally I do not consider single pilot operations appropriate in commercial flying and would not fly as single crew again myself.
Multi crew is safer for all concerned, that evens includes the pilots!
Aviation is expensive, another pilot won't break the bank! Oh and another thing (I know it's on another thread), light piston twins should not be used for public transport, they are old, under powered, and barely stay up on one engine let alone climb with a full load of fuel and pax.
So then.........hard hat on, ear plugs in !!!
UTF
When flying a non precision approach down to minimum on a gusty windy rainy night the pressure is on, this is made safer by having someone else on the flight deck to confirm instrument and altitude settings etc. It is very easy to make a mistake on your own, a lot harder to do when another pilot is watching over you.
Personally I do not consider single pilot operations appropriate in commercial flying and would not fly as single crew again myself.
Multi crew is safer for all concerned, that evens includes the pilots!
Aviation is expensive, another pilot won't break the bank! Oh and another thing (I know it's on another thread), light piston twins should not be used for public transport, they are old, under powered, and barely stay up on one engine let alone climb with a full load of fuel and pax.
So then.........hard hat on, ear plugs in !!!
UTF
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast, as a Pilot's Assistant you were required to log your hours as SNY (Supernumary) but could not count the hours towards your total. If the captain was also a flying instructor with a multi-engine instruction rating (as the guy I flew with had) it was possible to log the time whilst NOT engaged on a public transport flight as PuT (Pilot Under Training).
In any case, regardless of what went in the book, it was great experience and a good way for a newbie to the business to get a crack at a turboprop! At that stage most new pilots would pay to even sit in the seat let alone fly it!
In any case, regardless of what went in the book, it was great experience and a good way for a newbie to the business to get a crack at a turboprop! At that stage most new pilots would pay to even sit in the seat let alone fly it!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single crew operations
Usedtofly has hit the nail on the head there. The chances of an accident due to incapacitation are fairly remote. The chances of an accident due to high workload, loss of SA, or even flying beyond your limits are much higher.
Whilst muti-crew operations cannot guarantee this will not happen they do lessen the odds.
The chances of an accident due to someone deliberately disobeying SOP's 'because they know better' or because they think this type of flying requires "balls" are also increased in single crew operations.
I have operated extensively on both single and multi-crew operations and I know which one I'd put my family on.
Last edited by Matt Vinyl; 30th Dec 2007 at 14:57. Reason: misquote
Just following this as someone who is not directly affected.
I have been flying multi crew from the start of my professional career and for me it is not so much about pilot incapacitation or aircraft complexity but human error.
We all make mistakes (except 411A maybe) and I challenge any captain to tell me that he has never been glad that his F/O pointed out something that he has overlooked (again, except for "know it all and has seen it all"-411A).
By the way, I think you will find that the glide ratio is not affected by the extra weight if the appropriate (higher) speed is being flown.
I have been flying multi crew from the start of my professional career and for me it is not so much about pilot incapacitation or aircraft complexity but human error.
We all make mistakes (except 411A maybe) and I challenge any captain to tell me that he has never been glad that his F/O pointed out something that he has overlooked (again, except for "know it all and has seen it all"-411A).
By the way, I think you will find that the glide ratio is not affected by the extra weight if the appropriate (higher) speed is being flown.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just trying to think of any commercial flights that have just gone in with single crew operating.
The first I remember is Jayne Wyams from ANT Blackpool in an Aztec over the North Sea, sadly her husband went the same way on the approach to Speke a few years back.
(RIP --Two great people)
The first I remember is Jayne Wyams from ANT Blackpool in an Aztec over the North Sea, sadly her husband went the same way on the approach to Speke a few years back.
(RIP --Two great people)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the end of single-crew commercial flights
Another aspect of this debate is the end of pilots age sixty plus flying single-crew commercial operations: or is it?
Having recently aquired 60+ status I was interested to read the revised format JAA class 1 medical certificate recently issued to me by a UK AME.
On the privileges and validities block, top line, it states, Quote: Expiry date of this certificate for single pilot air transport operations carrying passengers..(date entered)....unquote. Does this mean that I can continue to fly single crew commercial operations flying freight until the date entered for expiry for other commercial operations(next line down) and for multi pilot operations?
Having recently aquired 60+ status I was interested to read the revised format JAA class 1 medical certificate recently issued to me by a UK AME.
On the privileges and validities block, top line, it states, Quote: Expiry date of this certificate for single pilot air transport operations carrying passengers..(date entered)....unquote. Does this mean that I can continue to fly single crew commercial operations flying freight until the date entered for expiry for other commercial operations(next line down) and for multi pilot operations?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast
Why is redundancy essential? When was the last accident found to have been caused because of crew incapacitation in a single-crew aircraft? I don't know of any. What has changed that means single-crew operations are now to be considered more risky?
We all have medicals, and the CAA has been very sensible in bringing in stricter requirements for those of us who are older and fly single-crew.
Matt, UsedToFly
That can happen in any company that has poor standards, and where too much is expected of the crew. That's why the CAA monitors AOC operations.
Single-crew operations have stricter requirements for weather and for aircraft equipment. They are very sensible and necessary requirements.
There are also many pilots who could not do the job, some simply because of flying skill but many more due to temperament. It is a job for people with confidence in themselves, but who are willing to refuse to take unnecessary risks, and to delay everything if necessary. In other words they have to have a rare combination of self-reliance and caution. I do not have this naturally, but developed it in past lives. It is something I look for in crews we recruit, and encourage through training.
This is why the pressure is very rarely on, as usedtofly suggests. We keep out of situations that are beyond the skill and experience of the crews. Some of our line crews are not even allowed to fly to normal approach minima, they have their own depending on experience. I have also flown jobs instead of other pilots, as I knew that while that pilot was perfectly capable of the flight he would be under the sort of pressure that can cause errors. My greater experienced allowed me to have spare capacity. I don't like sitting on the ground worrying about pilots, so I don't send them up unless they are safe.
Any client is entitled to ask for second crew. Some do, and we oblige. However they generally have to pay extra for the privilege, and might even have to take a larger aircraft (some aircraft couldn't even carry a single passenger, two-crew and full of fuel!). Why should they not be allowed to choose otherwise?
And usedtofly
What has suddenly changed that twin pistons shouldn't be used for public transport? They have an excellent safety record (if you ignore the dodgy charters that injure famous people).
nav chiefie
Well why should some bureaucrat in the Belgrano tell you that you can't risk your own life? Client's property would be insured.
Why is redundancy essential? When was the last accident found to have been caused because of crew incapacitation in a single-crew aircraft? I don't know of any. What has changed that means single-crew operations are now to be considered more risky?
We all have medicals, and the CAA has been very sensible in bringing in stricter requirements for those of us who are older and fly single-crew.
Matt, UsedToFly
That can happen in any company that has poor standards, and where too much is expected of the crew. That's why the CAA monitors AOC operations.
Single-crew operations have stricter requirements for weather and for aircraft equipment. They are very sensible and necessary requirements.
There are also many pilots who could not do the job, some simply because of flying skill but many more due to temperament. It is a job for people with confidence in themselves, but who are willing to refuse to take unnecessary risks, and to delay everything if necessary. In other words they have to have a rare combination of self-reliance and caution. I do not have this naturally, but developed it in past lives. It is something I look for in crews we recruit, and encourage through training.
This is why the pressure is very rarely on, as usedtofly suggests. We keep out of situations that are beyond the skill and experience of the crews. Some of our line crews are not even allowed to fly to normal approach minima, they have their own depending on experience. I have also flown jobs instead of other pilots, as I knew that while that pilot was perfectly capable of the flight he would be under the sort of pressure that can cause errors. My greater experienced allowed me to have spare capacity. I don't like sitting on the ground worrying about pilots, so I don't send them up unless they are safe.
Any client is entitled to ask for second crew. Some do, and we oblige. However they generally have to pay extra for the privilege, and might even have to take a larger aircraft (some aircraft couldn't even carry a single passenger, two-crew and full of fuel!). Why should they not be allowed to choose otherwise?
And usedtofly
What has suddenly changed that twin pistons shouldn't be used for public transport? They have an excellent safety record (if you ignore the dodgy charters that injure famous people).
nav chiefie
Well why should some bureaucrat in the Belgrano tell you that you can't risk your own life? Client's property would be insured.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by niknak
As a passenger, it doesn't matter to me if second pilot is picking his nose, serving coffee or operating the throttle while the captain fiddles with the rudder, safety is paramount over relative cost.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life's a Beech said, ' We all have medicals, and the CAA has been very sensible in bringing in stricter requirements for those of us who are older and fly single-crew.'
I was not refering to or making this an age debate, I was simply saying I think two pilots is safer than one, and I challenge you to say otherwise.
As for medicals, you are quite right, but there are 364 other days in a year, and as an MOT tells you your car is in good shape on the particular day it was tested, thats all it really tells you.
This is not about whether a single pilot is any less capable, it is not a witch hunt against single pilot operations, it is a debate about whether two pilots is safer than one.
Bearing that in mind, I believe two pilots will win every time. Now whether it is financially viable, thats something else.
You also said, ' Why is redundancy essential?'
Redundancy is among one of the main reasons aviation and flying is SO safe, how many other modes of transport have such redundancy built into them?
I was not refering to or making this an age debate, I was simply saying I think two pilots is safer than one, and I challenge you to say otherwise.
As for medicals, you are quite right, but there are 364 other days in a year, and as an MOT tells you your car is in good shape on the particular day it was tested, thats all it really tells you.
This is not about whether a single pilot is any less capable, it is not a witch hunt against single pilot operations, it is a debate about whether two pilots is safer than one.
Bearing that in mind, I believe two pilots will win every time. Now whether it is financially viable, thats something else.
You also said, ' Why is redundancy essential?'
Redundancy is among one of the main reasons aviation and flying is SO safe, how many other modes of transport have such redundancy built into them?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two pilots might be marginally safer than one. However that does not mean that single-crew operations are inherently unsafe.
The debate is whether single-crew operations should continue, in other words whether they can be safe, not whether two pilots are safer than one.
Three flight-deck crew are safer than two in large jet operations, even short haul. How about 4 crew, two pilots, and engineer and an overseer, to stand back and take out all the bad decisions when the crew focuses too much on one issue, or ignores a warning? Permanently put him on oxygen, and Helios wouldn't have crashed. You can always make a safety case for a larger crew, but a balance has to be struck. Two crew operations allow one pilot to go to the loo - safety case for catheterising all crews and making them stay in their seats all the time?
It might sound silly, indeed it is. However from the point of view of a single-crew operator who tries very hard to make the operation safe, the case for second crew on a light twin sounds silly.
Redundancy is necessary in aircraft systems. However they have an inherently high probability of failure. I have had most systems fail on aircraft I have flown, including gear, alternators and engines. I know people who have had failures of all the others. However I know only one person who has ever been incapacitated while he could, medically, have been in flight (but wasn't). I know a lot of pilots and ex-pilots, and it happened long before I knew him and he was struggling to get his medical back. He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot.
Like an MOT a medical only tells you of health on the day (and remember for those in the more likely categories to suffer, it is 182 days, not 364). However like a car your body will have symptoms of deterioration for most conditions that can invalidate it, and we should all monitor for it being safe, and the medical like the MOT is legally invalid if it is known to have deteriorated below test standards.
The debate is whether single-crew operations should continue, in other words whether they can be safe, not whether two pilots are safer than one.
Three flight-deck crew are safer than two in large jet operations, even short haul. How about 4 crew, two pilots, and engineer and an overseer, to stand back and take out all the bad decisions when the crew focuses too much on one issue, or ignores a warning? Permanently put him on oxygen, and Helios wouldn't have crashed. You can always make a safety case for a larger crew, but a balance has to be struck. Two crew operations allow one pilot to go to the loo - safety case for catheterising all crews and making them stay in their seats all the time?
It might sound silly, indeed it is. However from the point of view of a single-crew operator who tries very hard to make the operation safe, the case for second crew on a light twin sounds silly.
Redundancy is necessary in aircraft systems. However they have an inherently high probability of failure. I have had most systems fail on aircraft I have flown, including gear, alternators and engines. I know people who have had failures of all the others. However I know only one person who has ever been incapacitated while he could, medically, have been in flight (but wasn't). I know a lot of pilots and ex-pilots, and it happened long before I knew him and he was struggling to get his medical back. He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot.
Like an MOT a medical only tells you of health on the day (and remember for those in the more likely categories to suffer, it is 182 days, not 364). However like a car your body will have symptoms of deterioration for most conditions that can invalidate it, and we should all monitor for it being safe, and the medical like the MOT is legally invalid if it is known to have deteriorated below test standards.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to 'facts' after the opinions:
15th July 2008 is the point at which EASA regulations will come into force. As I understand it, no european national aviation authority will be able to issue exemptions to EASA regulations. At present, JAA regulations only allow Single Pilot Public Transport under IFR with a fully functioning autopilot. This will not change.
However, the UK CAA has issued exemptions to this rule to some operators, of whom Blue Islands and Aurigny are two examples (based upon 'grandfather rights'), which allow them to operate single pilot without an autopilot, but not into the busier airfields such as the main London ones and Manchester and Birmingham. There will be no such exemption from July, therefore they must either be two-pilot or have a serviceable autopilot.
Since there is no approved autopilot made for the Trislanders any more (although Aurigny has a few on their aircraft for which spare parts are 'difficult to find') and the cost of getting another one approved is around £300k, the picture looks bleak. Of course the question one might ask is that, assuming that the existing autopilot is being used to allow continued single-pilot operation after July 08, at what point in the schedule for the day does the single pilot declare the autopilot U/S...?
15th July 2008 is the point at which EASA regulations will come into force. As I understand it, no european national aviation authority will be able to issue exemptions to EASA regulations. At present, JAA regulations only allow Single Pilot Public Transport under IFR with a fully functioning autopilot. This will not change.
However, the UK CAA has issued exemptions to this rule to some operators, of whom Blue Islands and Aurigny are two examples (based upon 'grandfather rights'), which allow them to operate single pilot without an autopilot, but not into the busier airfields such as the main London ones and Manchester and Birmingham. There will be no such exemption from July, therefore they must either be two-pilot or have a serviceable autopilot.
Since there is no approved autopilot made for the Trislanders any more (although Aurigny has a few on their aircraft for which spare parts are 'difficult to find') and the cost of getting another one approved is around £300k, the picture looks bleak. Of course the question one might ask is that, assuming that the existing autopilot is being used to allow continued single-pilot operation after July 08, at what point in the schedule for the day does the single pilot declare the autopilot U/S...?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Two pilots might be marginally safer than one.
Three flight-deck crew are safer than two in large jet operations, even short haul. How about 4 crew, two pilots, and engineer and an overseer, to stand back and take out all the bad decisions when the crew focuses too much on one issue, or ignores a warning? Permanently put him on oxygen, and Helios wouldn't have crashed. You can always make a safety case for a larger crew, but a balance has to be struck. Two crew operations allow one pilot to go to the loo - safety case for catheterising all crews and making them stay in their seats all the time?
It might sound silly, indeed it is.
However from the point of view of a single-crew operator who tries very hard to make the operation safe, the case for second crew on a light twin sounds silly.
He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot.
your body will have symptoms of deterioration for most conditions that can invalidate it,
and the medical like the MOT is legally invalid if it is known to have deteriorated below test standards.
Stepping away from the medical issues how many deaths have there been in single pilot operations that might have been avoided had there been a second crewmember to confirm things like minima, memory items, MSA, QFE or QNH?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flintstone
Stepping away from the medical issues how many deaths have there been in single pilot operations that might have been avoided had there been a second crewmember to confirm things like minima, memory items, MSA, QFE or QNH?
Until we get some figures, this is just a subjective discussion based on sentiment and a perception of "safety" induced by the current trend of "the precaution principle".
Eliminate one cause of aircraft accident fatalities out of a hundred (my guess) by driving an entire branch of small airline and charter operations out of business?
To me this stinks.... of many things. Special interests? Incompetent politicians? Brown-nosing civil servants? Anybody care to add to the list?
Oh, and when will we have double controls and two drivers in taxis? Or in touring cars/buses (whatever) where the accident record with drivers falling asleep at the wheel is particularly dismal?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Christiaan but LAB's coments were so far off I found it impossible to reply in a sincere manner. Maybe I should have been more succinct? Here we go then.
Two pilots will always be more safe than one. Res ipsa loquitur, it doesn't need figures, it's obvious. I've made no comment whatsoever on costs and the effect that might have on operators, I'm talking about the concept itself.
LAB was being silly, he admitted it. Why does that make my comment to that effect other than sane?
LAB wrote that he knew a pilot who had blacked out but it would have been ok if it had happened airborne because there would have been an autopilot. Come on. You cannot seriously be allying yourself to such a comment?
I'm unsure where you stand on the issue of sudden and unforeseen incapacitation but as you lumped my response to that in the 'non-sane' camp that would suggest you agree with LAB. Really? Healthy people are never taken ill without warning or even die?
For the record I've done plenty of single pilot work.
Two pilots will always be more safe than one. Res ipsa loquitur, it doesn't need figures, it's obvious. I've made no comment whatsoever on costs and the effect that might have on operators, I'm talking about the concept itself.
LAB was being silly, he admitted it. Why does that make my comment to that effect other than sane?
LAB wrote that he knew a pilot who had blacked out but it would have been ok if it had happened airborne because there would have been an autopilot. Come on. You cannot seriously be allying yourself to such a comment?
I'm unsure where you stand on the issue of sudden and unforeseen incapacitation but as you lumped my response to that in the 'non-sane' camp that would suggest you agree with LAB. Really? Healthy people are never taken ill without warning or even die?
For the record I've done plenty of single pilot work.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone
Why are you assuming there will be an incapacitation of the crew regularly? That is the basis of your argument. Otherwise my argument that multi-crew is only marginally safer stands.
I often tell the SLF that. It is correct.
My arguments were not far off. That is just an excuse for the lack of substance in your posts. Note that when anyone says that they don't need figures, "it's obvious", they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
Two pilots can be safer than one, but they are not always. If you actually bothered to listen in your human performance lectures then you would remember the term "risky shift". However that is not the debate you make the same mistake as South coast. The consideration is not whether multi-crew is safer, but whether single-crew is unsafe.
I was being silly to highlight how silly that mistake was. Yet you make the same argument, while accepting that the equivalent case for an airline is silly! At least my silly arguments are the ones I am using to highlight the silliness of others'!
If you really cannot understand my argument about only knowing one person with a class one medical who has ever blacked out, then I cannot see how you can make a meaningful contribution. All flight safety is based on probabilities. The probability of pilot incapacitation that affects flight safety is several orders of magnitude below the probability of an engine failure, hence we need a second engine but no second crew. That was my argument, as I was answering South Coast's comments about redundancy.
Note that the CAA agree with my "so far off" arguments, not your "so ... 'sensible, rational, well-informed'" arguments isn't it? Second crew are required in small aircraft for complexity and difficulty of operation, not for redundancy in case of incapacitation.
Why are you assuming there will be an incapacitation of the crew regularly? That is the basis of your argument. Otherwise my argument that multi-crew is only marginally safer stands.I often tell the SLF that. It is correct.
My arguments were not far off. That is just an excuse for the lack of substance in your posts. Note that when anyone says that they don't need figures, "it's obvious", they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
Two pilots can be safer than one, but they are not always. If you actually bothered to listen in your human performance lectures then you would remember the term "risky shift". However that is not the debate you make the same mistake as South coast. The consideration is not whether multi-crew is safer, but whether single-crew is unsafe.
I was being silly to highlight how silly that mistake was. Yet you make the same argument, while accepting that the equivalent case for an airline is silly! At least my silly arguments are the ones I am using to highlight the silliness of others'!
If you really cannot understand my argument about only knowing one person with a class one medical who has ever blacked out, then I cannot see how you can make a meaningful contribution. All flight safety is based on probabilities. The probability of pilot incapacitation that affects flight safety is several orders of magnitude below the probability of an engine failure, hence we need a second engine but no second crew. That was my argument, as I was answering South Coast's comments about redundancy.
Note that the CAA agree with my "so far off" arguments, not your "so ... 'sensible, rational, well-informed'" arguments isn't it? Second crew are required in small aircraft for complexity and difficulty of operation, not for redundancy in case of incapacitation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LAB. Please stop twisting or reinventing my comments. I'll keep my responses simple. Please answer them in a straightforward manner.
I'm not. Please show me where I wrote that.
No it is not. Please quote where I wrote that.
Come the day a single pilot is incapacitated how 'marginal' will the benefit be?
Including 'substance' is unnecessary, the concept is simple. If two-crew were unnecessary airlines could save a fortune in salaries.
You also say I have no idea? Please tell me the basis for your assumption. To do so would require you having knowledge of my qualifications and experience otherwise you are making uninformed guesses.
Let's overlook the irony of the arrogance contained within that statement which contains the phrase 'human performance lectures' (and their CRM/psych content) shall we?
Why bring it up then? I didn't.
I think not. I was making the point that multi-crew is safer. If I made the point that single-crew is unsafe feel free to quote me.
Driving cars without seatbelts used to be considered 'safe'. Would you do it now?
I understand it but am stunned that you thought that was a good case. Just read it again..........."He blacked out, but recovered a few minutes later, and would have been OK if on autopilot."............ Does the crassness of that statement honestly escape you?
Indeed. That's why an additional crewmember reduces the probability of a serious accident/incident. You keep ignoring the fact that I have never written that single-crew ops are intrinsically dangerous. If I have I repeat, quote me.
At last!! You quote me! Except I never actually wrote "sensible, rational, well informed". If fabricating quotes is the only way you feel able to continue this discussion, please don't.
Now that IS a surprise. I have flown relatively simple twin-piston engined aircraft that required two crew. Every multi-crew type rating course I've ever done has included an element of training and testing of single crew ops as the result of pilot incapacitation. Oddly enough everyone else I know who has undergone similar training has had the same. Have you found this to be the case? If not please tell me which training organisation gave you a multi-crew rating without addressing this scenario.
Why are you assuming there will be an incapacitation of the crew regularly?
That is the basis of your argument.
Otherwise my argument that multi-crew is only marginally safer stands.
That is just an excuse for the lack of substance in your posts. Note that when anyone says that they don't need figures, "it's obvious", they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
You also say I have no idea? Please tell me the basis for your assumption. To do so would require you having knowledge of my qualifications and experience otherwise you are making uninformed guesses.
Two pilots can be safer than one, but they are not always. If you actually bothered to listen in your human performance lectures then you would remember the term "risky shift".
However that is not the debate
you make the same mistake as South coast.
The consideration is not whether multi-crew is safer, but whether single-crew is unsafe.
If you really cannot understand my argument about only knowing one person with a class one medical who has ever blacked out, then I cannot see how you can make a meaningful contribution.
All flight safety is based on probabilities.
Note that the CAA agree with my "so far off" arguments, not your "so ... 'sensible, rational, well-informed'" arguments isn't it?
Second crew are required in small aircraft for complexity and difficulty of operation, not for redundancy in case of incapacitation.
Last edited by Flintstone; 1st Jan 2008 at 00:44.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly my point. Come the day. Come the day that the two engines fail on an ETOPS trip, then the third would have been quite useful.
I twist none of your comments, I interpret them with relation to the argument against single-crew operations, the subject of the thread.
Two crew are necessary on larger aircraft, flying a more difficult job. I have never denied that two crew are required for some operations. Your substance is required, but it is still sadly lacking. It is still not "obvious" to the CAA, probably the strictest aviation regulation body in the world. but it is to Flintstone, so he doesn't have to justify it!
Why do you unilaterally decide to overlook a section of what you were taught on a CAA-approved course, and decide that I am the one being arrogant? We are taught that a group decision can be more hazardous than any one individual for a reason, and that is to avoid bad decisions caused by this element of psychology. I have found that is one of the things people learn at ATPL only to forget, which is unfortunate.
Perhaps you didn't bring it up, but South Coast did, then you replied to my reply to him. Why did you do so? I certainly didn't bring it up.
You still fail to understand my point, which is a concern as it relates directly to the entire basis of flight safety. There is no crassness in that statement. It relates to the CAA's judgement of flight safety. I would ask you how many system failures you have experienced in vital systems that have some redundancy, and how many times you have suffered incapacitation in flight? How many people do you know who have suffered system failures, and how many have been incapacitated in flight? The two issues differ by several orders of magnitude (as I have already pointed out, but you ignore to concentrate on a gross misunderstanding of the issue. I'm glad I know your username, or I might suspect you were a journalist). As it happens my friend has a class II medical again, having never blacked out since years before I met him.
Driving cars without seatbelts has no bearing on the issue. Please reread your own post, it makes no sense. I cannot answer an argument that is pulled out of the air and relates to nothing rational in te debate
I have never written that single crew is safer than multi crew. If I have, then please quote me (and first make sure you know the meaning of "can be" as compared to "is" so as not to make an idiot of yourself by quoting my last post).
I was not intending to quote you. I was parodying your characterisation of my argument as "so far off" without any justification or even understanding. "sensible, rational, well informed" is my judgement of the opposite, which I assumed you thought your prejudices to be.
Look at JAR-OPS. The requirements for multi-crew operation (turbojet, pressurised turboprop, seat numbers etc.) relate to size, speed and complexity of operation, not likelihood of incapacitation (do you imagine I am less likely to keel over in a C421 than a C525? That is bizarre!). I do not deny that you train for pilot incapacitation, but that is not relevant to the argument I made. Twisting that one to a completely different issue does not help your case! Crew incapacitation is incredibly rare, and not the subject of the thread.
Face it, I agree with the CAA and JAA, although we operate a little more strictly than either requires. They are known to be over cautious if anything.
I twist none of your comments, I interpret them with relation to the argument against single-crew operations, the subject of the thread.
Two crew are necessary on larger aircraft, flying a more difficult job. I have never denied that two crew are required for some operations. Your substance is required, but it is still sadly lacking. It is still not "obvious" to the CAA, probably the strictest aviation regulation body in the world. but it is to Flintstone, so he doesn't have to justify it!
Why do you unilaterally decide to overlook a section of what you were taught on a CAA-approved course, and decide that I am the one being arrogant? We are taught that a group decision can be more hazardous than any one individual for a reason, and that is to avoid bad decisions caused by this element of psychology. I have found that is one of the things people learn at ATPL only to forget, which is unfortunate.
Perhaps you didn't bring it up, but South Coast did, then you replied to my reply to him. Why did you do so? I certainly didn't bring it up.
You still fail to understand my point, which is a concern as it relates directly to the entire basis of flight safety. There is no crassness in that statement. It relates to the CAA's judgement of flight safety. I would ask you how many system failures you have experienced in vital systems that have some redundancy, and how many times you have suffered incapacitation in flight? How many people do you know who have suffered system failures, and how many have been incapacitated in flight? The two issues differ by several orders of magnitude (as I have already pointed out, but you ignore to concentrate on a gross misunderstanding of the issue. I'm glad I know your username, or I might suspect you were a journalist). As it happens my friend has a class II medical again, having never blacked out since years before I met him.
Driving cars without seatbelts has no bearing on the issue. Please reread your own post, it makes no sense. I cannot answer an argument that is pulled out of the air and relates to nothing rational in te debate
I have never written that single crew is safer than multi crew. If I have, then please quote me (and first make sure you know the meaning of "can be" as compared to "is" so as not to make an idiot of yourself by quoting my last post).
I was not intending to quote you. I was parodying your characterisation of my argument as "so far off" without any justification or even understanding. "sensible, rational, well informed" is my judgement of the opposite, which I assumed you thought your prejudices to be.
Look at JAR-OPS. The requirements for multi-crew operation (turbojet, pressurised turboprop, seat numbers etc.) relate to size, speed and complexity of operation, not likelihood of incapacitation (do you imagine I am less likely to keel over in a C421 than a C525? That is bizarre!). I do not deny that you train for pilot incapacitation, but that is not relevant to the argument I made. Twisting that one to a completely different issue does not help your case! Crew incapacitation is incredibly rare, and not the subject of the thread.
Face it, I agree with the CAA and JAA, although we operate a little more strictly than either requires. They are known to be over cautious if anything.
Last edited by Life's a Beech; 1st Jan 2008 at 01:31.