Do We REALLY NEED Two Pilots In ANY Airplane??

[Doc]

Meatservo and I are having the age old "do we need a co-pilot on a Caravan" chat on another thread.
The Caravan aside, what are your thoughts? With the "bells and whistles" available to pilots today, do we NEED a second pilot?
Let's hear your comments. And, some of your reasoning behind them.
Under what circumstances could we all fly single pilot, and when, and on what would we really NEED two crew?

I'm not going to voice an opinion, one way, or the other. Just curious.

I open the floor....

[200hr Wonder]

No, not day to day A to B flying we don't. Even the Airbus and Boeing machines if you made all switches reachable I am sure can be managed by a single person. Key word managed. When things start breaking, and emergencies arise is when you want that second person.

[ETOPS]

When pilots are pushing 65 years of age and still flying commercially.

[BeechNut87]

I think most aircraft out there could under ideal circumstances be flown single pilot (VMC, no emergencies, familiar territory, functioning autopilot,etc...). But as we all know bad weather, mechanical issues, new airports, and airspace is something we deal with on an everyday basis. So on that thought, I dont think one pilot could safely operate the aircraft through all phases of flight.

Thats just my 2 cents for what its worth...

[iflyforpie]

Any time the risks associated with single pilot operation outweigh the cost of another pilot.

[CaptainHaddock]

Hmmm, I fly night cargo and at 4am on the way into YVR even with three of us I'd be surprised if we had enough synapses firing to be as alert as one person in the daytime.

PF'Did I call for the landing checklist yet?'

PNF'I can't remember'.

PF'allright,Landing Checklist'.

S/O reads checklist as he/she can't remember either.

Silence for another minute...

PF'Did I call for the landing checklist?'

PNF'I can't remember'......

I truly think 2 crew members are required as a check and balance. We all make mistakes and automation only follows what it is commanded to do.

[lionheart27]

So just to understand this.
Your saying that the future of this business is to cut corporate costs, increase risk and put the future of pilots careers in the hands of the diplomats.

I have no issues with one pilot Caravans and either would the business, but when you start decreasing the safety, security and future of this industry until robots are flying planes, I think its time for you to retire.
I like technology but I don't think its a substitute for a human being.

My two cents.

[pilotidentity]

I wouldn't mind being on call on the ground with, say, a portable computer with wireless access and when an emergency arose I could lend a hand as the second pilot linked to the aircraft somehow.

[Sulako]

To me, there are two big reasons for having more than 1 pilot on the flight deck.

a) to catch random errors.
b) to catch errors as a result of fatigue.

Not many flights go by when the guy in the right seat doesn't point out something I have missed or heard incorrectly, or programmed incorrectly - fortunately it's usually really small, but I hardly ever pull off a completely 'perfect' flight from A to B. It's also nice to have someone to bounce ideas off as well - "Do you think we should deviate around this CB to the left or to the right?" etc.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the single greatest threat to safety in my niche (corporate flying) is fatigue, and I really appreciate having someone to watch my 6 as well as keep me awake during long legs in the middle of the night.

[Big Pistons Forever]

You do not need a second pilot if all is going well ...... but he/she can be hugely important if things are not going well. Do you think Sully could have done it all himself ?

But the real issue IMO, is not one pilot or two, the issue is the lack of effective two crew SOPs and an an operation that does not have a true 2 crew culture.... which I think describes many, if not most, of todays 703 operators

I think in some situations it can actually be more dangerous flying with a second pilot, where there is an ill difined separation of duties and responsibilties, and where each captain has his/her own way of doing things, than as a single pilot where at least there is no doubt about who is doing what.

Flying 2 crew properly so that you actually realize the advantages of having 2 brains and 2 sets of hands and feet requires real discipline. If you do not have a written set of SOPs that cover every aspect of normal operations and emergency procedures, training, and check riding where success depends on using those procedures and and a company culture that insists you fly the way you train (ie tolerates that it is OK to do what ever you want as soon as you are away from checkpilot oversight).....than the safety advantage of the second pilot is IMO largely illusiory

[Janszoon]

I'd hate to be single-pilot on a large aircraft in an emergency situation where my concentration on flying the aircraft is compromised by diverting my attention by reaching around the cockpit and making sure I'm following memory items properly. Take any major incident you know of where a two-crew (or three-crew) aircraft successfully mitigated an emergency, and image that situation single-pilot.


One example:

European Air Transport/DHL OO-DLL, November 22, 2003, Airbus A300B4-203F, Missile attack, loss of hydraulics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_shootd ... in_Baghdad

A terrorist missile is fired at a European Air Transport freighter flying on behalf of DHL Aviation. The left wing burns out of control and all hydraulic pressure is lost. Despite the damage the aircraft lands safely at Baghdad, the first successful landing of a large airliner without the use of hydraulics. The crew are later given awards in recognition of their actions that day.


With single-engine VFR operations, I can't see a need for two-crew. If there is any failure you don't have many options, other than looking for a place to land while you attempt a restart if you're high enough, and the simple systems of the aircraft make workload manageable. When you start to get into IFR operations and aircraft systems get more complicated, two-crew can start to become beneficial.

That tipping point in aircraft system complexity and type of operations where two-crew becomes more beneficial than single-crew isn't clear, but I would lean towards IFR operations as being sufficient to warrant two-crew. Myself, I wouldn't accept a position doing single-pilot, single-engine IFR, but that's just me. The argument continues...

[lionheart27]

First I apologize for getting my feathers rustled a bit on that last post.

But really in adding to in favor of two pilots being better than one to that mentioned.

This protects both the pilots and the people who fly them and the industry.
Correct errors, missing checks, potential missed communications, weather avoidance,fatigue,etc.
If a cockpit fire happened who would fly the plane? There is a procedure and contingency here.
This is a safety issue more than anything else. One flies the plane, the other handles the rest. Both work together. End of story.
ANC.

In a remote fly in mom and pop operation there is going to be a profit point for the company to stay afloat. But even in some instances a second pilot will relieve the second pilot if hours, fatigue and safety come into play.
Hey I know these rules are broken and its all to save a buck but we all know what happens to ones who pinch pennies where pilots are concerned.

Thank you Academy

[iflyforpie]

With single-engine VFR operations, I can't see a need for two-crew. If there is any failure you don't have many options, other than looking for a place to land while you attempt a restart if you're high enough, and the simple systems of the aircraft make workload manageable.

How about heli-logging in a Bell 214? Single engine, VFR, slow speeds, fixed gear ,and typically traveling far less than 25NM. Why on earth would they operate these seemingly simple flights two crew?

[cdnpilot77]

I am pretty shocked that Doc of all people would raise this topic, no matter what side of the fence you sit. Why in the times and economy that we live in (and I as a low timer have been feeling it bad) would we look for or even try to justify reducing jobs for pilots? I know it is never going to happen where an A320 is flown single pilot and this is an obvious attempt to get a rouse out of people, but I am going to bite.

Does it matter if they are needed or not? If they are adding jobs to the pilots in waiting by sitting right seat in a Caravan and getting paid to do so, then why can't we be thankful that people are offering jobs that may be a bit redundant...why question it? Why can't we just say "Hey, yeah, they are necessary"...otherwise how the hell is anyone ever going to be trained (without Bonds) to fly the airplanes that are being flown by the likes of you and others like you when you retire? It's the old addage to "come with experience" but eliminate the right seat and there is nowhere to get it. If you don't have right seat jobs then are you going to get someone to pay for 500hrs of flying in a twin to get that job flying a Jo? Isn't that pretty much the same as a bond or "buying a job"? Maybe the Airforce would be interested in taking on the burden of training every pilot wannabe in Canada? Or maybe the insurance companies will reduce minimums on a new Falcon 7X to 200hrs with a fresh MIFR too. Is everyone going to have to start as an instructor to get those hours? Seems like the teacher to student ratio might go a little out of whack.

[Doc]

I am pretty shocked that Doc of all people would raise this topic,

Jesus man, I'm not advocating tossing the right seats out. Or for that matter, retaining them. I just tossed the question out there for you guys. So far it's been interesting. But it's a question for you guys. Not me.

You'll simply love my next topic....

[r22captain]

With single-engine VFR operations, I can't see a need for two-crew. If there is any failure you don't have many options, other than looking for a place to land while you attempt a restart if you're high enough, and the simple systems of the aircraft make workload manageable.

How about heli-logging in a Bell 214? Single engine, VFR, slow speeds, fixed gear ,and typically traveling far less than 25NM. Why on earth would they operate these seemingly simple flights two crew?

from TC

The Bell 214B helicopter is certificated to be operated with a minimum flight crew consisting of one pilot who shall operate the helicopter from the right crew seat. For external load flying, a supplement to the aircraft's type certificate can be issued by Transport Canada for a specific aircraft. This supplement allows a single pilot to fly that aircraft from the left seat, provided that certain modifications--including installation of dual controls, a left-door bubble window, and critical instruments added to the left-door window sill--have been made to the aircraft.

with that being said the cost's of the "crtical instruments" and the type certificate are more then the cost of a co-joe...so hence 2 crew......and you need someone to write the loads down

[Rowdy]

I'm an advocate of a proper two crew sop'd environment. Thats two sets of eyes and ears. Regardless of where you are or whats happening. we're all human, we all @#$! up and if you dont believe that you're beyond ignorant and shouldnt be seated up front.

There are a billion reasons for two crew and only cost savings as a reason against.

Dont forget it's also one of the better ways to bring new low time guys into the environment in a safe and effective manner. We need to do a better job of that actually... The guy in the right seat is there also to learn and figure his shit out before being cut loose on the other side.

[Meatservo]

Don't be shocked that Doc brought it up, the whole issue arose over the Caravan debate in the "Wasaya" thread, and since it looked like I was about to steer that topic away from whatever it started out as into a discussion about co-pilots, he started a new thread. It's more or less my fault.

The thing is, I pick up on this attitude from people, that the right seat in a Caravan is a silly place to put a copilot, and my question was, why is it any sillier than the right seat of any other plane?

I'm actually of the opinion that you can go ahead and put as many, or as few, pilots into your own planes as you like as long as it's legal. Right now I fly a plane that is certified for one pilot operation, but is almost always flown with two pilots. For one thing, it carries more than nine passengers, so a second crewmember is required. Also, it is certified for night IFR operations, and does not have an autopilot, therefore a second crewmember is also required. The funny thing about the requirement being based on how many people are in the plane is that, I am always in the plane and wouldn't mind if it was just as safe regardless of how many other people are in it. So I'm a big fan of having a co-pilot anyway.

I'd hate to be single-pilot on a large aircraft in an emergency situation where my concentration on flying the aircraft is compromised by diverting my attention by reaching around the cockpit and making sure I'm following memory items properly. Take any major incident you know of where a two-crew (or three-crew) aircraft successfully mitigated an emergency, and image that situation single-pilot.

See, what I'm saying is I agree with this, except I'd also hate to be single-pilot on a SMALL aircraft where my concentration on flying the aircraft is compromised...etc...

Sulako and Captain Haddock mention fatigue, and the desirability of having someone in those situations to check up on your work. I can remember a few times asking for the pre land checklist immediately after having completed it, just like in the example. I know for a fact there are some times I was about to make a pretty serious error (usually of omission) and was caught by a helpful and timely comment from the right seat.

If I owned a Caravan, I probably wouldn't run it two-crew. However, if the same Caravan had a lot of night/ifr flying to do, and I had a group of keen young pilots already working for me who wanted to earn some extra pay helping to keep things on the rails when the days are long and the weather is the shits, I'd probably be happy to give them some flying to do. They would have to complete a PCC and the company exam for the plane however.

If I ever get a job flying a Caravan again, and I find out it comes with a co-pilot I won't complain.

[iflyforpie]

Thanks for the info r22, I didn't realize that was the reason for two-crew ops (I though it was for relief). The purpose still fits with the topic; an operational requirement remedied by the addition of a second crew member...



I recall hearing a few topics ago how some of the old guard (like Capt Sully) were lamenting the demise of the 2nd officer position in airliners; because even though the S/O wasn't flying, there was tons of knowledge being observed through managing systems, calculating power settings, and just being exposed to the airliner cockpit environment and crew decision making processes. What better way to mentor a new pilot than as a co-pilot? Not to mention the added safety factor.

[Ogee]

Meatservo and I are having the age old "do we need a co-pilot on a Caravan" chat on another thread.
The Caravan aside, what are your thoughts? With the "bells and whistles" available to pilots today, do we NEED a second pilot?
Let's hear your comments. And, some of your reasoning behind them.
Under what circumstances could we all fly single pilot, and when, and on what would we really NEED two crew?

I'm not going to voice an opinion, one way, or the other. Just curious.

I open the floor....

Ummmm....any Russian transport airplane? Doesn't it take a soccer team to fly some of those?

[The Old Fogducker]

Only wimpy cowards that can't fly need somebody beside them to hold their hand during flight and talk 'em down when the weather gets bad.

All ops should be SPIFR from the smallest to largest ... any pilot worth his paycheque should be able to handle it, or else get out of that seat, go home, and make way for somebody that can.

I've got a whole filing cabinet full of resumes from pilots that want that job.

That second or third body is a total waste of money to an already cash strapped industry....besides, the more there are in the cockpit, the more likely they are to just bitch and moan about how tough it is to work for the Ops Mgr Kenny Dewitt and the Chief Pilot, Ben Dover ... one of the best stick and rudder guys you wimps will ever watch penetrate a CB with a load of passengers on board.

Signed .... Hugh G. Reckshun,
Owner, Grovel Airways,
A Limited Liability Company

[Moose47]

Just a note of historical interest, during the Second World War, R.A.F. Bomber Command flew single pilot ops. They flew light, medium and heavy bombers through all sorts of shit to reach the target with bomb-laden aircraft and then try to evade the enemey on the way back home. These young kids, many of whom were Canadians flying with R.A.F. and R.C.A.F. squadrons were responsible not only for their aircraft or 'kite' as they referred it to, but also their crew which could number up to 7 or 8 depending on the aircraft type and operation. Many of these ops lasted up to eight hours. You throw in being coned by search lights, enemy flak, nightfighters, combat damage, wounded crew and a host of other problems and it makes for a very stressful flight.

Fairey Battle
Bristol Blenheim
Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
Vickers Wellington
Handley Page Hampden
Short Stirling
Consolidated Liberator
Boeing Fortress Mk. I
de Havilland Mosquito
Avro Manchester
Avro Lancaster

Cheers...Chris

[Moose47]

Oops, forgot the Handley Page Halifax.

Cheers..Chris

[iflyforpie]

Not only did RAF Bomber Command suffer appalling losses during WWII (exceeded IIRC only by infantry), but operational and training losses for the RAF exceeded losses due to enemy action.

[willing to fly]

Caravan/Pilatus aside, I highly advocate for two crew.
Fatigue is probably the biggest day to day issue with the type of flying a lot of us do. The post about calling for landing checklists sounds strangely familiar. Although I have never flown a plane with something as fancy as a TCAS, let alone full glass it's all garbage in, garbage out. If you're doing night cargo, or all night medevac flying, your mind is often counting sheep and I've seen very experienced captains completely miss approach checks. While it wouldn't have killed us not to have the autofeather armed, it could have if we had an engine failure.
The other reason I'd advocate having two crew is in the event one crew gets sick. I know it's a rare occurrence but about a year ago, I flew with a captain that got sick just after calling for the after take off checks. He spent the next two hours either with his head back and eyes closed or hunched over with his head between his knees. Incidentally that plane didn't have an auto pilot - FO's are cheaper than autopilots at a lot of companies.
On another note, wasn't there a european airline that had the captain die of a heart attack half way through the flight? The FO landed without incident if I remember. What if the captain hadn't loaded the approach he or she was expecting prior to the fatal incident? It's rare but that could have been 300+ deaths instead of one.
You think a second crew member is expensive, try an accident.