Single pilot operations in the airlines is a concept that’s been around for years, and one that we are certainly, if slowly, marching towards. However, how long before it’s here depends on being able to thoroughly address a number of significant challenges. In this month’s edition, we’re considering some of the issues associated with single and even zero pilot operations.
To start, it’s pertinent to note that in the history of commercial aviation and in terms of required staffing and certification, we have never added pilots to the flight deck, we have only ever removed them. In the 1930’s, Pan Am Clippers had six on the flight deck (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, radio operator, flight engineer, and a watch officer); down to four in the 1950’s (pilot, co-pilot, navigator and engineer); reduced to just two with the introduction of the Boeing 737 in 1968. Many organizations, entities, and individuals would like to see this reduced to one pilot, and then perhaps zero someday, but we have a ways to go yet.
Before we can get to single pilot or remotely piloted operations (airliners as drones), designers and engineers, governments and regulators, airlines and operators must not only address substantial safety and technological challenges, but security and public concerns, as well. To this end, and rather than offer an expansive digest on the subject, the following are some of the key points we typically offer when asked by students, passengers, fellow pilots and others about the future of single pilot ops.
The first thing we often point out is the expansive engineering (in design and software) that will be required to remove a pilot position from the flight deck. Currently, airliners are not constructed or certified to allow a single pilot to reach all switches and control panels safely in order to fly solo. Flight decks would need to be completely redesigned around the pilot (much like fighter aircraft) in order to meet this fundamental challenge. Extensive automation would also need to be installed in order to assist the lone pilot with accomplishing myriad operationally overlapping tasks such as starting a second engine while taxing to the runway or running checklists while flying the plane and making radio calls.
Though not second in terms of priority, a comprehensive review of safety (which encompasses a Venn diagram of biology, security, and technology) is high on our list of single pilot ops requirements.
Within the biological quadrant of the flight-safety diagram, we have fatigue and bodily functions. Pilots get tired, need to eat and go to the bathroom. Having more than one pilot on the flight deck provides opportunities to stay awake through conversation and allows one to stretch their legs for a few minutes, either on or off the flight deck, all while cross-checking the other’s work to ensure accuracy. Being able to eat or go to the bathroom also requires more than one pilot to be focused on the flight. Even in the reduced pilot format (where one pilot can rest or go to the bathroom while another pilot actively manages the aircraft), flight deck design must allow for this to occur while providing immediate but secure access to the flight deck and the second pilot station.
Cognitive state is also in the Venn, and although an extremely rare occurrence, there are a few documented cases (Germanwings Flight 9525 in 2015, EgyptAir Flight 990 in 1999, and possibly Malaysia Air Flight 370 in 2014) where a pilot intended harm to the flight, and another pilot assigned to the flight was absent from the flight deck. In these incidents, the lack of another pilot removed a vital security measure and safeguard—opposed to FedEx Flight 705 in 1994, and Alaska Air (Horizon) Flight 2059 in October 2023, where the presence of other pilots on the flight deck averted disaster.
Similar to cognitive state, what about a single pilot medical emergency? Although extremely rare, we must ask if an AI system would be sufficient to manage a flight with an incapacitated pilot.
Then there is the physical defense of the flight deck, which has become a consistent factor in safeguarding airliners since 9/11. What physical barriers and protocols will need to be developed to ensure the integrity of the flight deck under single pilot or remotely piloted operations?
Additionally, consider whether a single pilot or remote pilot operation (where control of the flight may be shared with artificial intelligence, an AI-based computer system) will have sufficient shielding to prevent hacking?
Speaking further of AI, complex human decision-making might not be replaceable even by highly complex algorithms, especially when it occurs between two humans. If another US Airways Flight 1549 (2009) were to happen tomorrow, it is not likely that any current AI system would be able to create a positive outcome.
Government and regulatory actions typically come up next. Once technical, biological, and security issues have been wholly solved, the drafting and passing of internal and international laws, policies, and procedures, along with certifications and agreements within and between ICAO states (International Civil Aviation Organization) will need to be completed before domestic and international flights may be operated under these conditions. This of course takes time and relies not merely on reliable systems and facts, but indeed, politics.
However, just because technology and rules demonstrate that it can be done, doesn’t necessarily mean that the traveling public will be ready to climb aboard a single-pilot flight – in fact, consumer and passenger surveys presently bear this out. Conversely, boxes don’t particularly care who may be at the controls, so it’s reasonable to assume that once all the other challenges are met, cargo operators would be likely early adopters of single and reduced pilot operations.
The reality is that it is likely we will get to single pilot and zero pilot operations one day—not next year, probably not in the next decade, but perhaps cargo operations inside the next 20 years and passenger operations in another ten or so years after that. But people need to get used to Waymo (autonomous taxis) first.
Yet, solutions do or will exist to address the issues mentioned above and others not reviewed here, but these will of course cost money—lots of money. Nevertheless, the current investment by companies in single and zero pilot technologies is decidedly underway and may yield future payoff through significant savings realized by economic, staffing, and time efficiencies arrived at by this slow but continually transitioning industry.
While you consider all of this, we’ll be preparing our July installment of Grey Matter to discuss the future of supersonic flight.
