Treading carefully

The news sent pilots’ unions into a frenzy and the comments sections across various websites into a heated debate. The concept, nor the debate, are recent developments, however, the report of a formal study has seemingly edged it closer to becoming a reality – notwithstanding the results of the study.

Some see the study as a prelude to single pilot commercial airline operations, while their antagonists argue that pilotless flight is inevitable, in the same way that switchboard operators disappeared from telephone exchanges. Drawing a parallel between telecommunications and the carriage of human life in the stratosphere is somewhat incongruous, but the point is taken. It’s a sizeable issue that is undoubtedly coming down the line, but it’s interesting that freighter operations are the potential proving ground, merely because there will ‘only’ be a sole human occupant.

In the first instance, it would seem to disregard the ramifications for the greater population on the ground. The take-off, approach and landing are the most critical phases of flight and the periods when there is the minimum time for reaction in the event of an emergency situation. That is not to say that the remotely piloted single human-computer interface won’t ultimately be as safe and efficient as a two-pilot crew, but it would seem to be rolling the dice with people’s rooftops in the trial phase, at least.

There are certain checks and balances that come with two-pilot operations, from simply double-checking a load sheet or fuel uplift to actioning a switch in an emergency situation. Some of these actions require both interpretation and discussion before they can be resolved. So much time and effort has been dedicated to studying human factors and how crews interact and function, that remotely piloted operations will call for an entirely new way of doing business. The way in which a lone pilot establishes a ‘cockpit gradient’, communicates and co-ordinates with a remote operator, or even the aircraft itself, will require close examination. In fact, one would suspect that the psychological profile of a pilot who can spend extended periods alone on a flight deck would be somewhat different to the current modelling and raise a long list of considerations.

Additionally, the move to single-pilot flight decks would appear to be at odds with the community concern that led to the knee-jerk legislation that resulted from the Germanwings crash. Following the lone pilot’s suicidal dive into the mountains, global outrage called for there to always be two persons on the flight deck to theoretically circumvent the actions of a rogue pilot. (Whether that legislation made any difference, or just provided a warm and fuzzy feeling in the aftermath is an entirely different debate.) Perhaps, there are plans for an ‘override’ function by the ground controller to intervene should they suspect that the pilot is displaying malicious intent? If so, therein lies a critical and fundamental issue in terms of who is the pilot-in-command?

‘Perhaps, there are plans for an ‘override’ function by the ground controller.’

Reservations about pilot behaviour may be genuine following Germanwings, but who would be monitoring the behaviour of those with their finger on the button at sea level? And that may be a team of people, consequently introducing new levels of threat, all the way down to initial coding and software design. Their mistakes may be genuine, but they are mistakes nonetheless. More sinister may be the vulnerability to hackers, both those with agendas and those who inadvertently create chaos as they dawdle into corners of the digital world where they should not venture.

Some of the questions to be raised are far simpler. Freight aircraft can carry livestock at times and the crew have sedatives to administer in the case of an emergency, calling for one pilot to leave the flight deck. The need for one crew member to go back to the ‘cabin’ may be far simpler, from a noise that was heard to a bathroom break, to obtaining adequate rest. As always, pilot incapacitation is a genuine concern that must be considered.

All of these possibilities call for the pilot to leave the controls unmanned and the remote operator in command. Possibly, therein lies the truth of the matter – this is really a pilotless operation. The human on board is actually redundant to a fully automated system and serves in this instance as an act of tokenism, or a transitional step to the ultimate goal of pilotless flight. There will undoubtedly be duties assigned and a role to play, but one cannot imagine that there is not a fail-safe that allows for any of those tasks to be conducted without the pilot on board.

From there the debate of pilotless flight returns and the ability for computer algorithms to cater for every eventuality, from hackers to Sully’s ditching on the Hudson River. Community acceptance of being flown by a ghost in the machine and comparing the threats of human error in the cockpit to human error in the software chain.

At this stage, it is simply funding for a study, but it would be naive to dismiss the potential eventuality of remotely piloted flight across a range of commercial operations. Outrage can be as pointless as assumptions, so measured, logical steps founded in safety is the only true way forward. Change is inevitable, but only when its roots are sound. There is always the possibility that one hundred years from now, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. For now, we don’t possess the benefit of hindsight, only the lessons of history and history warns us that we should tread carefully.