THE DANGERS
OF SINGLE-PILOT
OPERATIONS
Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l
7950 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 400S
McLean, VA 22102
703-481-4440
[email protected] • www.alpa.org
2019
Foreword from
alpa president joe depete
“This white
paper articulates
the Association’s
position in
maintaining
the role and
recognizing the
importance of
the most vital
safety feature
in transport-
category aircraft
now and for
the foreseeable
future: two
experienced,
trained,
and rested
professional
pilots in the
cockpit.”
Executive Summary
C
Necessity of Multiple Pilots
Workload Sharing
Cockpit Coordination
Adapting to Changing Conditions
Single-Pilot airline Operations: A Risk
Not Worth Taking
Reduced Coordination
Overreliance on Automation
Handling Emergencies
PuBlic policy and Opinion on
Single-Pilot Operations
Cybersecurity in the Cockpit
The Economic Case
Increased Workload
Obstacles to Single-Pilot Operations
Technological Hurdles
Higher-Priority Federal Investments
as Compared to Reduced-Crew and
Single-Pilot Operations
Upgrading the National Airspace System (NAS)
Alternative Research Avenues
Section 1: Necessity of
Multiple Pilots
T
The Benefits of Multiple Pilots
Spreading Workload
An Assessment of Reduced Crew and Single
Pilot Operations in Commercial Transport Aircraft Operation
“When the pilot workload exceeded certain limits,
the pilots would shed tasks and in doing so, errors in
execution or omission would occur.”
“Two pilots provided for a pilot monitoring. Two-
crew operations provided four hands, four eyes, and
two brains to monitor and work the problem[s]. Two
pilots provided for workload sharing, especially in the
rudder trim runaway non-normal where the physical
workload to control the vehicle was signicant. Two
pilots provided a larger wealth of experience from
which to draw from such as adapting to unique ying
techniques [using asymmetric thrust to help balance fuel
load or rudder trim], knowing nearby available, suitable,
but underused airports [Grand Junction, CO], or
understanding secondary or compounding failure eects
that are not checklist items [loss of generators will cause
pressurization eects].”
Medical Contingencies
Adapting to Changing Conditions
The Shortcomings of Remote Pilot Assistance
Reduction or Loss of Nonverbal Communications
Ground-based pilot Confusion
This
Communications Outages
Toward Single Pilot Opera-
tions: The Impact of the Loss of Non-Verbal Communication on the Flight Deck
Security Risk
Summary: Necessity of Multiple Pilots
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cyber Threats in Aviation
Section 2: Single-Pilot
airline Operations: A Risk Not
Worth Taking
Single-Pilot Operations Increase Workload
for the Remaining Pilot
Single-Pilot Operations Technical Inter-
change Meeting: Proceedings and Findings
Detailed Actions Required - Taskwork and Teamwork
Full Automation (FA1)
MCP (FA4)
Remote Interaction Impedes Communication
Reliance on Automated Systems Affects
Pilot Performance
Toward Single Pilot Operations: The Impact of the
Loss of Non-Verbal Communication of the Flight Deck
“At this time, the prospect of adding signicant
autonomous decision-making on a piloted aircraft is
viewed with some degree of concern for the ability of the
system to add value without adding risk.”
Single-Pilot Operations Do Not Address
Pilot Incapacitation
Two Pilots Needed for Flight Deck Security
Two Pilots Are Best Defense During Crisis
•
•
•
•
“The pilots could overcome the circumstances presented,
but rated the workload, safety, and acceptability as being
unacceptable in an emergency condition. There were
notable ight performance decrements during [single-pilot
operations] compared to two-crew operations that suggest
unacceptable reduced safety margins.”
Summary: Single-Pilot airline
Operations: A Risk Not Worth Taking
•
crisis
•
•
•
Section 3: Public Policy
and Opinion on Single-Pilot
Operations
Current Regulation Does Not Support
Single-Pilot Operations
Division of Labor on the Flight Deck
In this
This section
Aircraft Design Standards
The
Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements
Commuter and On-demand Operations
The Federal Aviation Administration’s
Policies Discourage Single-Pilot
Operations
Public Opinion Opposes Single-Pilot
Operations
Summary: PUBLIC Policy and Opinion on
Single-Pilot Operations
•
•
•
•
Section 4: Obstacles to
Single-Pilot Operations
A
Technological Hurdles Remain
Artificial General Intelligence
Machine-Pilot Interaction and Monitoring
Toward tractable universal induction
through recursive program learning
“Detection of the pilot state is a non-trivial problem for
which no 100% reliable solution currently exists. While
death can be reliably detected, conditions that impair a
pilot’s judgment [e.g. hypoxia] can be more dicult to
detect. Determination of pilot impairment will likely
require the development of new onboard automation
to assess pilot state, but also joint assessment and
conrmation from the ground operators based on their
interactions with the onboard pilot.”
Pilot Experience and Perception
“A key requirement for [single-pilot operations]
implementation is advanced automation that provides
onboard support functions at a level well beyond what
is currently available in modern commercial aircraft.
While it may be tempting to simply automate as many
of the current pilot functions as possible, distancing the
captain from the ight/mission could erode situation
awareness [SA] and cognitive readiness.”
Upgrading the NAS Is a Pressing Priority
This increase
“To address these challenges, the National Airspace
System needs to undergo a transformation to a more
scalable, exible, user-focused system that addresses
safety and security requirements and resiliency for
current and new users.”
Cybersecurity Issues Present Additional
Challenges
Cyber Threats in Aviation
Public Opposition Presents Political Barrier
A Deficient Economic Case May Weaken
Incentive
Design of a Single Pilot Cockpit for Airline Operations
Summary: Obstacles to Single-Pilot
Operations
•
•
•
•
•
Section 5: Higher-Priority
Federal Investments as
Compared to Reduced-Crew
and Single-Pilot Operations
C
“. . . the aviation community’s highest priorities for
research lie in safety, highly ecient aircraft, the
evolution of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System [NextGen], UAS access to the National
Airspace System [NAS]. More recently, community
focus on on-demand aviation systems has increased
as UAS have shown the potential for more profound
changes to the aviation system.”
Efforts to Rebuild the NAS
The NextGen Program
Accommodating New Entrants to the NAS
While
In
Technology Development Meeting Aviation
Priorities
ARMD Priorities
Longer-term, High-payoff Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Summary: Higher-Priority Federal
Investments as Compared to Reduced-
Crew and Single-Pilot Operations
•
•
•
•
Summary and Conclusion
The Necessity for a Second Pilot in the
Cockpit
Technology Readiness
Public Opposition to Single-Pilot Operations
Investment Alternatives
Conclusion
121120
