Single pilot cockpit in commercial airlines

[JT2002TJ]

What can you make our of this? Why, I can make a hat or a broach or a pterodactyl...

And no, I would not feel safe with only one pilot in a commercial setting. Didn't we just have an issue with a pilot who had a heart attack on a plane recently and he passed away? For some reason, I feel raising the prices even $10-20 per passenger, I would imagine would cover the costs.

The first step will be two pilots where the plane can fully fly itself, but the pilots will be there as backup (this is already possible today). The next step will be 2 pilots, but the pilots will have to answer as to why they turned autopilot off (much like a go-around on a landing). It won't be punitive, but to gather an understanding and make improvements. Next a pilot will be removed, and this pilot will become the first officer or plane's co-pilot. After this the plane will be solo.

It will come, like it or not.

The aviation industry is a leader for identifying potential errors and determining the root cause for actual errors. They will go about it the right way, but it will come.

For example, like Elon or not, SpaceX has a plan to find ways to reduce the cost of space travel until it is affordable like today's air travel. To do that, the rockets had to be reusable, Space X solved a major problem with space travel making the rockets self-guided and landing under their own power. As I understand it Space X spaceships do not fly under pilot control (but I could be wrong). Elon's vision (I am not crediting him with the vision, but he is the face of his company) for human space travel is for spaceships to have a turn-around-time like today's airplanes. They land, passengers get on while refueling and loading then taking off for the next trip. This will be the only way to move humans to another planet, in the 100% likelihood that Earth runs out of resources or has a catastrophic Earth ending event.

For space travel to be the cost of today's air travel, air travel will have to be the cost of today's bus travel. To do that, we need planes that can fly 24hrs a day, with immediate turnaround. To be successful they need to be fully automated.

Imagine being able to travel to any airport in the world in 10's of dollars instead of 100's or 1000's of dollars...

 

[rhett7660]

The first step will be two pilots where the plane can fully fly itself, but the pilots will be there as backup (this is already possible today). The next step will be 2 pilots, but the pilots will have to answer as to why they turned autopilot off (much like a go-around on a landing). It won't be punitive, but to gather an understanding and make improvements. Next a pilot will be removed, and this pilot will become the first officer or plane's co-pilot. After this the plane will be solo.

It will come, like it or not.

The aviation industry is a leader for identifying potential errors and determining the root cause for actual errors. They will go about it the right way, but it will come.

For example, like Elon or not, SpaceX has a plan to find ways to reduce the cost of space travel until it is affordable like today's air travel. To do that, the rockets had to be reusable, Space X solved a major problem with space travel making the rockets self-guided and landing under their own power. As I understand it Space X spaceships do not fly under pilot control (but I could be wrong). Elon's vision (I am not crediting him with the vision, but he is the face of his company) for human space travel is for spaceships to have a turn-around-time like today's airplanes. They land, passengers get on while refueling and loading then taking off for the next trip. This will be the only way to move humans to another planet, in the 100% likelihood that Earth runs out of resources or has a catastrophic Earth ending event.

For space travel to be the cost of today's air travel, air travel will have to be the cost of today's bus travel. To do that, we need planes that can fly 24hrs a day, with immediate turnaround. To be successful they need to be fully automated.

Imagine being able to travel to any airport in the world in 10's of dollars instead of 100's or 1000's of dollars...

Oh I am not saying it won't come... Just like cars without drivers, it will come, but we are not there yet. And, I would imagine, by the time this does come, I probably won't be around, or I won't be flying like I do now. So the impact to me, unless the planes start falling out of the sky, will be minimal to none.

 

[Huntn]

What can you make our of this? Why, I can make a hat or a broach or a pterodactyl...

And no, I would not feel safe with only one pilot in a commercial setting. Didn't we just have an issue with a pilot who had a heart attack on a plane recently and he passed away? For some reason, I feel raising the prices even $10-20 per passenger, I would imagine would cover the costs.

When I used to fly the Airbus A320, the pilots’ pay per person, cost each passenger about $3 per hour.

 

[Huntn]

The first step will be two pilots where the plane can fully fly itself, but the pilots will be there as backup (this is already possible today). The next step will be 2 pilots, but the pilots will have to answer as to why they turned autopilot off (much like a go-around on a landing). It won't be punitive, but to gather an understanding and make improvements. Next a pilot will be removed, and this pilot will become the first officer or plane's co-pilot. After this the plane will be solo.

It will come, like it or not.

The aviation industry is a leader for identifying potential errors and determining the root cause for actual errors. They will go about it the right way, but it will come.

For example, like Elon or not, SpaceX has a plan to find ways to reduce the cost of space travel until it is affordable like today's air travel. To do that, the rockets had to be reusable, Space X solved a major problem with space travel making the rockets self-guided and landing under their own power. As I understand it Space X spaceships do not fly under pilot control (but I could be wrong). Elon's vision (I am not crediting him with the vision, but he is the face of his company) for human space travel is for spaceships to have a turn-around-time like today's airplanes. They land, passengers get on while refueling and loading then taking off for the next trip. This will be the only way to move humans to another planet, in the 100% likelihood that Earth runs out of resources or has a catastrophic Earth ending event.

For space travel to be the cost of today's air travel, air travel will have to be the cost of today's bus travel. To do that, we need planes that can fly 24hrs a day, with immediate turnaround. To be successful they need to be fully automated.

Imagine being able to travel to any airport in the world in 10's of dollars instead of 100's or 1000's of dollars...

Eventually I think it will happen, but not soon. Historical note for everyone, read The Right Stuff, if you have not. Good reading. During the US-Russian space race, the original plan on the US side was to have piloted aircraft fly into space, then Sputnik, then in a rush, pilots ended up as passengers on tops of rockets, just like monkeys as some of the test pilots, now astronauts observed.

 

[dontwalkhand]

Thinking objectively, I already use many modes of transport with worse safety records than commercial aviation–cars, trains, busses, streetcars, subways–that have a single operator. So why not big planes?

But subjectively, major airline flights would feel less safe with a single pilot. I think this is kind of irrational, especially given a lot of long-haul flights land almost automatically with minimal human guidance. For example, the pilots in this crash contributed to the accident because they were unable to move beyond merely supervising the automated landing procedure:

Asiana Airlines pilot in San Francisco crash was 'stressed' about landing

NTSB report says captain had apprehensions about landing before Boeing 777 crash in July killed three and left 150 injured

www.theguardian.com

and, also at SFO, neither pilot in this incident noticed their potentially fatal mistake:

Air Canada plane nearly lands on a crowded taxiway at San Francisco airport

An Air Canada flight attempting to land at San Francisco International Airport nearly touched down on a taxiway crowded with planes on Friday night, the FAA said in a statement.

apnews.com

With cars being the worse of them all, and yet people still drive their cars every day, even to the airport. The saying is, the most dangerous type of most flights, is the drive to the airport.

 

[compwiz1202]

Some films just never get old....

I was on a Leslie Nielsen kick a while back. I need to see if I missed any.

 

[russell_314]

Interested to hear your thoughts on the possibility of commercial aircraft going to single pilot configuration as a cost cutting measure. Personally, the idea scares me. Would you fly on a commercial flight with one pilot in the cockpit? Do you think this will actually happen?

Pilot Of Qantas Flight 32 Blasts Cost-Cutting Plans For Single Pilot Operations

The captain of Qantas flight QF32 openly criticizes the introduction of single-pilot operations in commercial aviation.

simpleflying.com

Will it happen?... Yes of course. Why would a company pay double labor costs if they didn't have to. Airplanes used to have more than three people in the cockpit but those people were replaced with computers. It's just a continuation of what is already happening.

You won't have a choice as a consumer so if you need to fly then you'll have to deal with it.

 

[PauloSera]

Thinking objectively, I already use many modes of transport with worse safety records than commercial aviation–cars, trains, busses, streetcars, subways–that have a single operator. So why not big planes?

But subjectively, major airline flights would feel less safe with a single pilot. I think this is kind of irrational, especially given a lot of long-haul flights land almost automatically with minimal human guidance. For example, the pilots in this crash contributed to the accident because they were unable to move beyond merely supervising the automated landing procedure:

Asiana Airlines pilot in San Francisco crash was 'stressed' about landing

NTSB report says captain had apprehensions about landing before Boeing 777 crash in July killed three and left 150 injured

www.theguardian.com

and, also at SFO, neither pilot in this incident noticed their potentially fatal mistake:

Air Canada plane nearly lands on a crowded taxiway at San Francisco airport

An Air Canada flight attempting to land at San Francisco International Airport nearly touched down on a taxiway crowded with planes on Friday night, the FAA said in a statement.

apnews.com

What you can't google and post as reference are the countless times disaster is averted because one pilot catches the other pilot making a mistake. This happens ALL THE TIME. Which is why flying is considered a crew operation. If you need 1 pilot, then you need 2.

 

[Hawker 800]

The airlines are just like Apple. Always looking for opportunities to make more profit with less labor.

 

[MarkC426]

The airlines are just like Apple. Always looking for opportunities to make more profit with less labor.

Just raise prices of flights to cover costs of two pilots.
If people really want/need to fly then it's a luxury you pay for.

The number flights should be reduced anyway to reduce emissions.

 

[KaliYoni]

What you can't google and post as reference are the countless times disaster is averted because one pilot catches the other pilot making a mistake. This happens ALL THE TIME.

I'll leave that as an exercise to the student.
;-)

 

[Hawker 800]

Just raise prices of flights to cover costs of two pilots.
If people really want/need to fly then it's a luxury you pay for.

The number flights should be reduced anyway to reduce emissions.

Same business model. If you have the iPhone 14 and plan on upgrading to the iPhone 15, that would be considered a luxury. The price increase will cover production cost. This could possibly reduce the number of new iPhones purchased. But that would be a good think because it would reduce emissions.

 

[A.Goldberg]

If they delete one pilot from the cockpit does that mean the airline will provide an extra 1” of legroom or maybe an extra baggage handler on the ground?

Well, if you look back at aviation history, you used to have a lot more people in the cockpit. It wasn’t long ago you had a flight engineer in addition to the pilot, co-pilot. Go back further (or look at some still flying Soviet planes) and you had a navigator and radio operator. Some planes even have electrical engineers (An-225, An-124). Of course, advancements in electronic systems and automation have largely made these other positions obsolete.

As it stands today, there are midsize (7-8 passenger) business jets that are certified for single pilot operations.

Considering redundancy is one of the pillars of aircraft safety, I think it will be very hard to implement single pilot commercial passenger jets. That said, if there is an economic incentive, it will probably eventually happen. The technology to enable alternative redundancy has to- i.e. an ability to remotely pilot the plane with a extremely secure and reliable communications system with minimal latency.

I suppose it’s possible freighter aircraft could be argued to have one pilot, though obviously there’s a huge threat to people on the ground with an incapacitated pilot. But even without remote piloting, you’d probably want a higher level of automated assistance than exists today. And the problem is most freighter planes are older, converted passenger planes.

The most likely near-term scenario is that long haul flights still have 2 pilots, but during the cruise portion where there is greatly reduced cockpit activity, single pilot operation would be allowed so the other can rest. This avoids the extra cost of a relief pilot. That said, you’d probably want the planes redesigned so the bunk is directly connected to the cockpit or at a minimum warnings are relayed to a disconnected bunk area. But I still think there could be consequences that have to considered and addressed, like having no accountability for a lonely, bored, and tired pilot who falls asleep at the controls while the other pilot is also sleeping. Or just the general job satisfaction of commercial pilots, esp long haul- I imagine this can be a somewhat lonely job as it is now.

Personally, I think having 2 pilots is more reassuring for everyone and frankly it is easier to continue with the status quo rather than trying to develop new systems and technologies to accommodate what is probably a relatively minimal financial optimization in the grand scheme of airline operations.

 

[Huntn]

If they delete one pilot from the cockpit does that mean the airline will provide an extra 1” of legroom or maybe an extra baggage handler on the ground?

Well, if you look back at aviation history, you used to have a lot more people in the cockpit. It wasn’t long ago you had a flight engineer in addition to the pilot, co-pilot. Go back further (or look at some still flying Soviet planes) and you had a navigator and radio operator. Some planes even have electrical engineers (An-225, An-124). Of course, advancements in electronic systems and automation have largely made these other positions obsolete.

As it stands today, there are midsize (7-8 passenger) business jets that are certified for single pilot operations.

Considering redundancy is one of the pillars of aircraft safety, I think it will be very hard to implement single pilot commercial passenger jets. That said, if there is an economic incentive, it will probably eventually happen. The technology to enable alternative redundancy has to- i.e. an ability to remotely pilot the plane with a extremely secure and reliable communications system with minimal latency.

I suppose it’s possible freighter aircraft could be argued to have one pilot, though obviously there’s a huge threat to people on the ground with an incapacitated pilot. But even without remote piloting, you’d probably want a higher level of automated assistance than exists today. And the problem is most freighter planes are older, converted passenger planes.

The most likely near-term scenario is that long haul flights still have 2 pilots, but during the cruise portion where there is greatly reduced cockpit activity, single pilot operation would be allowed so the other can rest. This avoids the extra cost of a relief pilot. That said, you’d probably want the planes redesigned so the bunk is directly connected to the cockpit or at a minimum warnings are relayed to a disconnected bunk area. But I still think there could be consequences that have to considered and addressed, like having no accountability for a lonely, bored, and tired pilot who falls asleep at the controls while the other pilot is also sleeping. Or just the general job satisfaction of commercial pilots, esp long haul- I imagine this can be a somewhat lonely job as it is now.

Personally, I think having 2 pilots is more reassuring for everyone and frankly it is easier to continue with the status quo rather than trying to develop new systems and technologies to accommodate what is probably a relatively minimal financial optimization in the grand scheme of airline operations.

Before I retired, there was an unofficial policy that existed in 2 pilot aircraft in some organizations if one was tired, they could close their eyes for a bit in their seat during cruise flight. Better to be alert for later in the decent and approach phases. The obvious problem is if both nod off.

Now I see this idea of 1 pilot as a terrible idea, until it reaches a point of remote piloting technology being utilized, but then who as a pilot, are you going to talk to pass the time? There is definietly an alert benefit from having company. 🤔

 

[Glideslope]

Before I retired, there was an unofficial policy that existed in 2 pilot aircraft in some organizations if one was tired, they could close their eyes for a bit in their seat during cruise flight. Better to be alert for later in the decent and approach phases. The obvious problem is if both nod off.

Now I see this idea of 1 pilot as a terrible idea, until it reaches a point of remote piloting technology being utilized, but then who as a pilot, are you going to talk to pass the time? There is definietly an alert benefit from having company. 🤔

I always wondered if you ELINT guys had your eyes open while listening. 😉

Just kiddin. Yes, was common practice on commercial hops. I agree the single Pilot operation is a terrible idea. The new B-21 while having 2 crew seats will eventually be able to fly autonomously. Not Remote Control like a MQ-Reaper.

With commercial aircraft once the technology becomes reality in 10-15 years the public will need to buy into it, as well as the ALPA.

This will end up being more of a Political End Game than the technology IMO.

 

[Parsec]

@seadragon:

It scares me too. I always say that if there is one pilot on board of an airliner, there should be two pilots. Even if only to prevent another suicidal pilot incident.

I don't believe in autonomous machines.

@icanhazmac:

I don't believe in one pilot monitoring 5-10 machines and assist during an emergency if needed.

I don't believe in one pilot monitoring 5-10 machines taking over if the machine doesn't know what to do anymore. This point and the previous open up the possibility to hijack the plane remotely.

It scares me... and I AM a pilot!!!

I think it will come. There is more than just talk about it. Manufacturers have been developing for a while already and are negotiating with authorities how to get it certified!

@KaliYoni:
Many incidents where pilots were no longer able to save the aircraft tend to have root-causes in management decisions reducing their time actually flying the aircraft. Luckily this trend has turned around for the better.

The job of the airline pilot seems pretty simple. And for a big part it is, but you're not being paid the big bucks to do the easy part of the job. You're being paid the big bugs to know what to do when **** hits the fan! Especially when the computers no longer know what to do or might actually be the cause of the problem! I've operated with state-of-the art autopilots and have had to save the machine on two occasions due to machine 'weirdness'

 

[Fumblerooskie]

Southwest wishes it were so right now. Perhaps they will become the “launch customer” for pilotless operations. They won’t have to worry about losing track of their entire workforce in the future.

 

[Glideslope]

Southwest wishes it were so right now. Perhaps they will become the “launch customer” for pilotless operations. They won’t have to worry about losing track of their entire workforce in the future.

WN has 2 issues from my point of view. The first and most significant is their inability to reinvest is their IT infrastructure. They are trying to run their fleet with the same amount of dated management software and hardware as when they were 1/4 the size.

Second due to the first issue the fact that they fly Point to Point rather than HUB is only compounded.

When this storm hit not only could flight crews not call in for up to 10hrs to receive instructions on where to go to reset, but WN couldn’t find them either.

All due to antiquated operational software/hardware. No excuse. WN knew they had this issue. Flight crews have been complaining for years.

Never been a WN fan. They don’t reinvest in infrastructure other than the fleet itself.

The DOT will nail their ass on this one, and they deserve it.

 

[A.Goldberg]

Before I retired, there was an unofficial policy that existed in 2 pilot aircraft in some organizations if one was tired, they could close their eyes for a bit in their seat during cruise flight. Better to be alert for later in the decent and approach phases. The obvious problem is if both nod off.

Now I see this idea of 1 pilot as a terrible idea, until it reaches a point of remote piloting technology being utilized, but then who as a pilot, are you going to talk to pass the time? There is definietly an alert benefit from having company. 🤔

It seems to me you would need to implement so many new systems and technologies to make this idea remotely feasible. As a pilot you probably have a better concept of this than I do, but I’d have to imagine the hourly cost of a pilot is a mere fraction (1-2%?) of the hourly operating costs a commercial airliner (obviously pilot salaries vary considerably). Not to mention all the other costs that go into operating an airline.

Considering the costs of developing, certifying, installing, and providing training around such systems, not to mention the liabilities having a single pilot carry, this doesn’t seem like that’s necessarily worth perusing.

Clearly remote control of aircraft is possible as we see with military UAV’s, but even those have been subject to hacking, such as the case with the Iranians tricking a top secret RQ-170 drone into landing on their territory- allegedly through a combination of data link jamming and GPS spoofing.

Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I say this half jokingly- considering in my experience inflight WiFi doesn’t work 50% of the time and we “lost” (and have yet to recover) flight MH370, I think we’re a long ways off from having robust enough technology to rely upon to safely fly aircraft with hundreds of people aboard.

 

[Herdfan]

I say this half jokingly- considering in my experience inflight WiFi doesn’t work 50% of the time and we “lost” (and have yet to recover) flight MH370, I think we’re a long ways off from having robust enough technology to rely upon to safely fly aircraft with hundreds of people aboard.

Is there a reason pilots need to be able to turn off the transponder? Maybe it should be hard coded and hidden away from anyone onboard.

 

[Huntn]

It seems to me you would need to implement so many new systems and technologies to make this idea remotely feasible. As a pilot you probably have a better concept of this than I do, but I’d have to imagine the hourly cost of a pilot is a mere fraction (1-2%?) of the hourly operating costs a commercial airliner (obviously pilot salaries vary considerably). Not to mention all the other costs that go into operating an airline.

Considering the costs of developing, certifying, installing, and providing training around such systems, not to mention the liabilities having a single pilot carry, this doesn’t seem like that’s necessarily worth perusing.

Clearly remote control of aircraft is possible as we see with military UAV’s, but even those have been subject to hacking, such as the case with the Iranians tricking a top secret RQ-170 drone into landing on their territory- allegedly through a combination of data link jamming and GPS spoofing.

Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I say this half jokingly- considering in my experience inflight WiFi doesn’t work 50% of the time and we “lost” (and have yet to recover) flight MH370, I think we’re a long ways off from having robust enough technology to rely upon to safely fly aircraft with hundreds of people aboard.

As far as purely flying an Airbus from Point A to B, the autopilot/aircraft is already capable, but it would need command and control equipment added to send the instruction from a remote location. More, but I can’t say how much more technically feasible equipment would be required to provide additional autopilot redundancy, and enable remote/automated resolution of malfunctions which currently require a human finger to push buttons, turn knobs, or flip switches.

 

[A.Goldberg]

As far as purely flying an Airbus from Point A to B, the autopilot/aircraft is already capable, but it would need command and control equipment added to send the instruction from a remote location. More, but I can’t say how much more technically feasible equipment would be required to provide additional autopilot redundancy, and enable remote/automated resolution of malfunctions which currently require a human finger to push buttons, turn knobs, or flip switches.

Sure, you could obviously take advantage of fly-by-wire and all the existing onboard automation, but integrating all of that into a remotely pilotable system sounds like it would require an extensive reworking of the planes electronics (and then all the testing and certification, which has only become more difficult in recent years).

You would know this better than me, but do all the electronics on an Airbus run through somewhat centralized computers? Are there things that are just basic circuits- ie seatbelt sign, landing lights, etc.
I would assume at this point newer planes have electronically controlled circuit breakers? Or at least to some extent.

Then the topic topic of having a datalink to have the bandwith to send all the necessary information back and forth, with very low latency, very high reliability, and be incredibly secure.

It’s obviously doable, as it has essentially been done before (albeit on much less complex aircraft and not carrying 200+ passengers). It will presumably become more feasible as things like satellite communications advance. But it still seems like an astronomical investment and doesn’t necessarily seem like a practical retrofit.

Is there a reason pilots need to be able to turn off the transponder? Maybe it should be hard coded and hidden away from anyone onboard.

From my understanding it’s for safety reasons- basically everything can be shut off- ie if a device is at risk of causing/perpetuating an electrical fire or just malfunctioning that could confuse other planes or controllers. Transponders are also commonly deactivated on the ground so as not to overwhelm the tower.

It does seem like there could be a better way of doing things- but MH370 was a rather unique situation. I can’t imagine aircraft systems are designed with such extreme circumstances in mind. And even if you consider something like a 9/11 style hijacking, if the plane is headed toward a target of value there is probably going to be radar coverage available to track the plane. When you’re in the middle of the Indian Ocean, obviously such a resource does not exist (short of a properly equipped naval ship that just so happens to be nearby).

I’m not sure if this is still the case, but there was at least one pilot murder-suicide where the suicidal/homicidal pilot intentionally pulled the circuit breaker for both “black boxes” prior to perpetrating his crime.

In the case of MH370, assuming the Pilot had this ability, I would not be surprised if this was also the case given what appears to be other actions intended to obfuscate his plans. (Assuming that the pilot indeed plan to kill himself and everyone else, which is the most plausible explanation)

 

[Huntn]

Sure, you could obviously take advantage of fly-by-wire and all the existing onboard automation, but integrating all of that into a remotely pilotable system sounds like it would require an extensive reworking of the planes electronics (and then all the testing and certification, which has only become more difficult in recent years).

You would know this better than me, but do all the electronics on an Airbus run through somewhat centralized computers? Are there things that are just basic circuits- ie seatbelt sign, landing lights, etc.
I would assume at this point newer planes have electronically controlled circuit breakers? Or at least to some extent.

Then the topic topic of having a datalink to have the bandwith to send all the necessary information back and forth, with very low latency, very high reliability, and be incredibly secure.

It’s obviously doable, as it has essentially been done before (albeit on much less complex aircraft and not carrying 200+ passengers). It will presumably become more feasible as things like satellite communications advance. But it still seems like an astronomical investment and doesn’t necessarily seem like a practical retrofit.


From my understanding it’s for safety reasons- basically everything can be shut off- ie if a device is at risk of causing/perpetuating an electrical fire or just malfunctioning that could confuse other planes or controllers. Transponders are also commonly deactivated on the ground so as not to overwhelm the tower.

It does seem like there could be a better way of doing things- but MH370 was a rather unique situation. I can’t imagine aircraft systems are designed with such extreme circumstances in mind. And even if you consider something like a 9/11 style hijacking, if the plane is headed toward a target of value there is probably going to be radar coverage available to track the plane. When you’re in the middle of the Indian Ocean, obviously such a resource does not exist (short of a properly equipped naval ship that just so happens to be nearby).

I’m not sure if this is still the case, but there was at least one pilot murder-suicide where the suicidal/homicidal pilot intentionally pulled the circuit breaker for both “black boxes” prior to perpetrating his crime.

In the case of MH370, assuming the Pilot had this ability, I would not be surprised if this was also the case given what appears to be other actions intended to obfuscate his plans. (Assuming that the pilot indeed plan to kill himself and everyone else, which is the most plausible explanation)

Last I saw, the Airbus was built based on the concept of 3s, 3 central computers with overlapping responsibilities. My previous point was that (my perception is) the state of current technology makes remote control possible but would still require a substantial investment and changes in public perspective to be financially successful.

 

[rhett7660]

Last I saw, the Airbus was built based on the concept of 3s, 3 central computers with overlapping responsibilities. My previous point was that (my perception is) the state of current technology makes remote control possible but would still require a substantial investment and changes in public perspective to be financially successful.

All of which I don't think either the company or the people flying are ready to do IMHO.

 

[KaliYoni]

This event may have turned out differently if there hadn't been two pilots in the cockpit...

An off-duty pilot is accused of trying to shut down the engines of a Horizon Air jet in midflight

An off-duty pilot riding in the cockpit of a Horizon Air passenger jet tried to shut down the engines in midflight.

apnews.com