ALPA: Single-pilot Ops Not a Risk Worth Taking

Part 121 of the FARs require a minimum of two pilots in the cockpit during commercial operations, and if the Air Line Pilots Association continues to have anything to say about that, those requirements will never ever be changed to allow single-pilot operations. To bolster its position, ALPA recently published a white paper titled "The Dangers of Single-Pilot Operations."

“Those promoting single-pilot operations argue that reducing crew size will lead to cost savings,” the 32-page document says. “However, the current body of evidence and experience, including more than a decade of study by NASA and the FAA, shows that the safety risks and challenges associated with single-pilot operations far outweigh its potential benefits.”

Although the paper does not identify any specific entities that are pushing for a change in Part 121 to allow single-pilot airline operations, it says “efforts have been proposed to research or introduce single-pilot or remote-controlled operations to the air transportation system.” It continues, “This concept is not only premature, but it would divert resources that could be directed to the critical and immediate need to further improve the efficiency of aircraft and infrastructure.”

Nor does the paper comment on the fact that under Parts 91 and 135, several large and small turbine airplane models are FAA approved for single-pilot flights, and these approvals are expanding as new business aircraft designs enter the market. The NBAA says it “encourages best safety practices across the board for single- and multi-pilot business aircraft operations, noting that each embraces unique characteristics that require tailored safety solutions, including tools such as duty and flight limits, augmented crews and risk-mitigation checklists, appropriate for that operation.”

ALPA concedes that reducing the size of cockpit crews would save airlines and air transport operators money on salaries, benefits, and other expenses, but it contends that some, if not most, of those savings would be offset by costs associated with reduced-crew and single-pilot operations. “These costs include outfitting or retrofitting aircraft with the necessary automation, sensor, and communications systems; ground infrastructure costs; salaries and benefits for remote ground-based pilots who would be needed to support single-pilot operations; and certification costs.”

Pilot Incapacitation

Pilot incapacitation is one of ALPA’s chief concerns about single-pilot operations. The white paper refers to published FAA data that reported that over a 10-year period there were 32 occurrences of pilot incapacitation in Part 135 operations resulting in 32 fatalities, all of which the NTSB attributed to single-pilot operations. Under Part 121 operations, incidences of incapacitation never led to a single fatality because the second pilot took over flying duties.

Although this data is from events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago (between January 1980 and July 1989), the association also pointed to more recent data revealing a similar situation. According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, from 2010 to 2015, there were 23 pilot incapacitation occurrences per year on average in Australia, 75 percent of them happening in high-capacity air transport operations. With multi-pilot crews, incapacitation had “minimal effect on the flight.” But for single-pilot general aviation operations, incapacitation often meant returning to the departure airport or crashing.

“Even as there are discussions about aviation in 2050 and beyond, it is clear the high-performance innovation needed to enable such an operation is currently beyond our reach,” concluded ALPA.

“Even in the modern technological age, there is no safe substitute for having at least two human pilots in the cockpit of large passenger and cargo transport aircraft.”