Two Versus Three

In America, the latest reports indicate that the airlines have successfully leant legally on a US Presidential study panel, and squeezed the admission from panel members that the Boeing 757 and 767 plus Airbus Industrie’s Airbus, “potentially can be operated safely by a crew of two. . . ”

US Airline Pilots’ Association skipper Captain J. J. O’Donnell says he’ll abide by the Task Group’s decision and urge his union’s governing body to accept it.

His statement represented an about-turn after his joining with the International Federation and Europilote in February in an unequivocal statement that three-man crews should be standard for all future airliners.

Unions began to retract after the US Administration set up the inquiry, and pledged to abide by the decisions and recommendations if the inquiry was fair and objective.

The only dissenting voice overseas has come from the British Airline Pilots’ Association, who have added a rider to the agreement.

BALPA wants a practical demonstration of the improved operating environment and technology improvements before considering a change in crew complement.

According to BALPA men, new flight deck gear for the A310 and Boeing 757 and 767 is not sufficiently impressive – and overseas pilots agree that the air traffic environment as it is likely to develop during the next decade isn’t enough to impress anybody.

In North America, the makeup of the recent Presidential Task Group was impressive enough: Dr John L. McLucas, president of Comsat World Systems and formerly chief of the FAA and Secretary of the Air Force; Lieutenant-General Howard Leaf, US Air Force Inspector-General; and physicist and former US Marine Corps pilot Fred Drinkwater. Perhaps the case hadn’t been argued sufficiently. Airline observers in the US noted that the pilots’ union had several domestic cracks in it.

Whatever the reason, it looked at first glance as though there was no winner in the contest. Moderates among the pro-threes observed with some philosophy that they would settle for two up front if the total operating environment was made safer- things like rules simplification, better cockpit displays and air traffic control.

In fairness, the panel recommended that the FAA use “improved” methods for evaluating pilot performance in Boeing’s 757 and 767, during certification processes.

Other suggestions included bigger and better simulators to check normal and emergency situations, using regular air-line check skippers instead of test and supervisory pilots.

The case for Three

One of the most telling statements issued during the debate regarding two contra three crew on the flight deck has been the assertion that the introduction of automation doesn’t necessarily ease the load on the human operator.

On the contrary, the increasing sophistication of aircraft systems across the board has meant less flying and more of the white-coated technologist-scientist on the flight deck.

Unions have already noted that official records show higher failure rates for new systems as well as new engines.

The main thrust of aircrews’ objections to a two-man crew revolves around the claim that they are being asked to fly bigger, less-reliable aircraft more accurately and economically through a progressively crowded sky – with a smaller crew up front.

There are many more arguments against two-man crews, many of which are being canvassed in Australia through the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators, and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

There is a realism in having a Flight Engineer or perhaps an Electronics Officer on the flight deck of Tomorrow’s generation of airliners.

There’s also realism in accepting the unaccountable but stark fact that when snags hit, they come in Christmas-size parcels, making a two-man crew’s job almost hysterical no matter how highly-drilled they are.

The siting of the F/E’s instruments overhead in the case of two-man crews or, as in the case of the Airbus tendency to put (where necessary) the third man on a perch between the two front seats in an FFCC (Forward Facing Crew Cockpit) configuration – could lead to literally a tangle of arms and legs in emergency situations.

The “old” situation (as in Australia’s domestic Boeing 727s) of having the F/E on a side-facing panel and seat, would appear to have worked well for years. Why change it, ask the three-man lobby.

On the Airbus FFCC setup, this was the initial sop given to aircrews after what had been regarded as a gentleman’s agreement between airlines and aircrews was allegedly breached by Airbus Industrie design teams.

That agreement was that when the new generation came along, it would cater for three up front in the office.

Airbus Industrie has set firm sights on the FFCC concept and claims to have solved the problem of space for instrumentation by employing a large amount of CRT (cathode ray tube) displays for systems management besides flight instruments and navigation data.

Boeing has apparently realised and assessed the opposition to two-man operation and offered new aircraft in either two- or three-crew configurations.

Germany’s pilots’ association has come out strongly against the FFCC concept. Even if a third man was carried, they say, the awkward seat position (with stirrups on the console!) would render the Third Man a fatigued mess at the end of a ten-hour duty period.

With typical Teutonic logic, the German association asked what would happen (using the it-all-happens-at-once approach) to a two-man crew or three with the third body sitting in his stirrups slap in the middle of the action – in the event of a cabin or cockpit fire, manual gear extension in the middle of Cat 3A approach, or the complete failure of ASIS, generators or communications.

Air France’s pilots and flight engineers unions have persuaded their airline’s management to accept Airbuses modified to have the F/E’s seat in the “old” position with hydraulics, electrical, pressurization and air-conditioning systems shifted from the overhead to the F/E’s part of the shop.

The Case for Two

Much of the case has been based on the plugging of safety and quite rightly so, seeing that the travelling public is what airline operations are all about.

Republic Airlines president Dan May’s testimony to the Task Force hearings revolved around the current operation of its fleet of 125 ‘9s of all types.

Republic had ten Nine Dash 80s on order for delivery this year and four more next year.

May emphasise that the Republic operated with two-man crews for safety reasons, not economy.

His company had polled the 950-odd pilots in Republic employ, about two three crews on the new 9-80s, and come up with a landslide vote for two-man crews being safe.

(The DC-9, Boeing 737, BAC 1-11 and Caravelle have been designed from the outset for two-man crew operation.)

Tradition has probably been a factor in voting against the two-man crew, basing argument on what was good for father is good enough for me logic-a purely emotional one also designed to help the Flight Engineers’ union.

Computer tests and readouts have proved that two crew can do most things currently allegedly needing three, while filling the requirements of safety, efficiency and comfort.

While Airbus Industrie has gone a bundle on two-man crewing, Boeing is apparently still having an each-way bet.

Boeing has gone on record as saying the flight decks of standard body 757 and wide body 767 will be certificated for a two-crew operation.

The 757 will apparently be certificated for two-crew operation, but there will be room for a third crew member.

The 767 will have a three-crew flight deck with a sideways-facing panel for the F/E. As mentioned, a two-crew ticket will be issued later.

Although Boeing could be accused of fence-sitting, the company has come out of its mid-position to the extent where Boeing’s VP Richard Taylor went on record last year as saying, “. . . the 11-year operating safety record shows conclusively that two-crew aircraft are superior to three-crew aircraft in terms of safety. . . ”

In the foreseeable future, it seems certain that British Airways will go three-crew for its 1983-delivery Boeing 757.

For the rest, it appears that the Airbus case will be the most significant factor in pointing the way for two or three bodies. on the future flight deck.

In an academic argument, both sides inevitably win.

It will take actual operational service over a set period to provide the proof of the pudding.

Meanwhile, Australian Aviation Wonders if There Is Any Way of Conducting a Poll for Two or Three Crew up Front, Among the Many Tens of Thousands of Airline Passengers Who Keep Both Airlines and Aircraft Manufacturers in Business.

It’s the Passengers Who Keep the Two and Three-Man Crews in Employment and Provide Dividends for the Airlines’ Investors. Surely They Could and Should Be Gave Some Choice of Having Two or Three Crew Members Wrestling With the Unexpected When It Pops Up.

Australian Aviation Has Asked the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, and the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators to Present Their Views and Policies on This Knotty Subject. We Intend to Carry Their Comments in the Next Issue of Australian Aviation.