Single pilot airlines should require diapers

[willnotwill]

[barnburner]

This should absolutely never become a thing, the single pilot thing, There should always be 2 pilots in the flight deck at all times, many airlines also require a flight attendant to sit in if a pilot needs to potty, its kind of to make sure a pilot who is mentally unwell shouldnt be able to to an ending of their life thing.

 

GermanWings 9525 is a 2015 event that was well documented about this, Malaysia Airlines 370 is a suspected self-unalive event as well but at this point may never be solved.

[Thetlus]

As a pilot, this idea horrifies me and most of every other pilot I know. We always scoff and shake our heads at such ideas, but there are all too many who think it would be good for one reason or another so it may not be up to us, especially with continuing advances in technology.

[ValentinesStuff]

What I find really strange is that they are prosing this for the long haul flights, not the short flights. My cousin got her hours for Captaincy flying a 15 minute commercial flight out of Detroit. A lot of ups and downs. 

 

[Little Sherri]

18 hours ago, Thetlus said:

As a pilot, this idea horrifies me and most of every other pilot I know. We always scoff and shake our heads at such ideas, but there are all too many who think it would be good for one reason or another so it may not be up to us, especially with continuing advances in technology.

There are some who think that with sat nav, all the back-and-forth between pilots and ATC, all the radio work, should be made redundant, and that the system would work far more efficiently if aircraft were pilotless drones being dispatched and coordinated by computers, like robots in an unmanned warehouse, or the barely-supervised assembly lines in modern factories.

If the driverless truck makes it onto the highway system and becomes common, this would be one of the next steps, although arguably, the variables in play on a populated public highway exceed those of an aircraft in level flight, adhering to mandated separation, at least for the cruising portion of the journey. Vancouver and other cities already have popular commuter trains that are driverless - they're essentially seen as horizontal elevators, and we know where the elevator operators of the world have gone. 

That said, I've always been mildly uncomfortable with the driverless trains - the assumption is that their environment can be very tightly controlled, and that is true most of the time (they're on elevated platforms), but the day something totally unexpected happens - I don't know, maybe a helicopter lands on the tracks - you can expect the train to react like an elevator would. IE, not to. 

And, autonomous trucks and cars will kill people - it's just a question of if they do it less than vehicles operated by humans, and if so, if that's acceptable. 

I like the idea of a person with some skin in the game, overseeing operations - the annals of aviation are full of incredible stories of innovation and problem-solving on the part of pilots who really didn't want to die today. And, of course, lots of sad stories where pilot errors resulted in tragedies, and those very rare occasions where malfeasance was involved. 

I think the solution is the technology overseeing the people, and the people being able to override the technology, for the best possible outcome. But that's not the cheapest outcome - the cheapest outcome is a 777 piloted by Amazon Web Services, flying direct from departure point to destination, with no vectoring or holding patterns, and no pension plan or benefits. Until the robots ask why they're ferrying around these bossy meat bags, anyway, and they rise up and compost us for biogas to fuel their generators. 

[zzyzx]

22 hours ago, Little Sherri said:

I think the solution is the technology overseeing the people, and the people being able to override the technology, for the best possible outcome. But that's not the cheapest outcome - the cheapest outcome is a 777 piloted by Amazon Web Services, flying direct from departure point to destination, with no vectoring or holding patterns, and no pension plan or benefits. Until the robots ask why they're ferrying around these bossy meat bags, anyway, and they rise up and compost us for biogas to fuel their generators. 

@Little Sherri: I feel like making a reference to "The adolescence of P-1" here.....  Something I believe I read in a college English (science fiction) literature course, shortly after it was published, while working on my Comp Sci degree.

[Thetlus]

On 9/6/2024 at 12:43 PM, Little Sherri said:

There are some who think that with sat nav, all the back-and-forth between pilots and ATC, all the radio work, should be made redundant, and that the system would work far more efficiently if aircraft were pilotless drones being dispatched and coordinated by computers, like robots in an unmanned warehouse, or the barely-supervised assembly lines in modern factories.

If the driverless truck makes it onto the highway system and becomes common, this would be one of the next steps, although arguably, the variables in play on a populated public highway exceed those of an aircraft in level flight, adhering to mandated separation, at least for the cruising portion of the journey. Vancouver and other cities already have popular commuter trains that are driverless - they're essentially seen as horizontal elevators, and we know where the elevator operators of the world have gone. 

And, autonomous trucks and cars will kill people - it's just a question of if they do it less than vehicles operated by humans, and if so, if that's acceptable. 

I like the idea of a person with some skin in the game, overseeing operations - the annals of aviation are full of incredible stories of innovation and problem-solving on the part of pilots who really didn't want to die today. And, of course, lots of sad stories where pilot errors resulted in tragedies, and those very rare occasions where malfeasance was involved. 

I think the solution is the technology overseeing the people, and the people being able to override the technology, for the best possible outcome. But that's not the cheapest outcome - the cheapest outcome is a 777 piloted by Amazon Web Services, flying direct from departure point to destination, with no vectoring or holding patterns, and no pension plan or benefits. Until the robots ask why they're ferrying around these bossy meat bags, anyway, and they rise up and compost us for biogas to fuel their generators. 

I'm aware of what they think and want and there have been strides to make operations smoother. But all too many forget the aviation environment isn't some closed-off warehouse/assembly line or some controlled environment single track.

There are still many variables that must be accounted for even in level cruise flight. One of the biggest being weather. An automated truck doesn't need to change course because there's a thunderstorm in front of it; aircraft often do, sometimes to the extent of changing the final destination altogether. A train is on a static track and not going to possibly find itself on a road 20+ miles off course because of potential interferences (signal disruptions/ electrical problems; a growing problem in the modern day given cyber attacks. Nature itself has shut down such systems plenty of times already). Never mind other problems like the plethora of videos of automated taxis unable to traverse once they get around each other, especially in intersections and parking lots. Yes, places do have automated transport systems in play already. China has a sort of mobile air taxi system active and the US intends to have a similar system (AAM: Advanced Air Mobility programs). What's scary is this is intended almost exclusively for densely populated areas where the most problems can occur similar to your reference to automated trucks. There's a reason the aviation industry is so heavily regulated in particular to becoming and maintaining oneself as a pilot (at least in the US, I can't speak much to other nations).

Unfortunately, the question of "killing less"/being safer has rarely been the first question. That's more so the second question which has kept pilots involved. There's a saying in the aviation industry that our FAR's (regulations) are written in blood. That can be said of several other aspects too. Technology can and has failed many times before. Now we're looking to give it the opportunity of those tragedies you mentioned.

Yes, the optimal thing would be for technology to be an aid to pilots that can be easily overridden when in primary use but even that has its issues. We do have automation that can (and has done so) land an aircraft with no visibility and no input by the pilots. If something happens on approach and the automation doesn't catch it, that plane is probably going to hit the ground. Assuming a go-around in needed, even with a pilot in play, those large airliners take several seconds for the engines to react to the throttle being engaged; they don't just rush off back into the air. One of the biggest reasons to have pilots is for safety and emergencies but automation has had a negative impact on pilot skills of late (the generalized excuse being complacency). But like you said, people will by and large go for the cheaper outcome. Know what else is simple and cheap? A quick settlement check for the loved one(s) you'll never see again...

[Albert-1701]

On 9/5/2024 at 12:49 PM, willnotwill said:

This photo is great. But if there are two pilots in the cockpit do you think that one will go to the toilet right in front of the other? And will the other pilot look the other way and hold his nose to avoid the stink?

Albert

me-1701@proton.me

[WeaselDiaperBoy]

I’ve always heard there’s an order to things when you’re flying: Aviate, Navigate, Urinate, and finally… Defecate. Gotta have your priorities straight, right? 😏✈️

I was also told that pee and poop wipe off, mountains and runways don't.

[willnotwill]

I should point out that I am a pilot (private) and have been wearing a diaper in flight for years.   I even keep one handy for my wife to use (she just sits on it and pees) when landing would be inconvenient.

[spark]

4 hours ago, willnotwill said:

I should point out that I am a pilot (private) and have been wearing a diaper in flight for years.   I even keep one handy for my wife to use (she just sits on it and pees) when landing would be inconvenient.

I won't fly without a diaper as passenger.   At this point, any time my toilet use is limited- I want a diaper.  Mind you, I also want to wear a diaper when the toilet is freely available.