Airline pilots have launched a campaign opposing efforts in Congress to research the impact of reducing the number of pilots in cargo aircraft from two to one, citing safety and cybersecurity concerns.
The Federal Aviation Administration requires that U.S. airlines have at least two pilots in the cockpit. But the House’s version of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, which the lower chamber passed at the end of April and would authorize FAA programs through 2023, includes a provision that calls for the FAA to “establish a research and development program in support of single-piloted cargo aircraft assisted with remote piloting and computer piloting.” The program would be assisted by NASA and other agencies.
The provision also calls for a report detailing the results to be submitted to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
But the Air Line Pilots Association, International, which represents more than 60,000 pilots from 34 U.S. and Canadian airlines, is opposing the provision and argues that technology is not a substitute for members of a flight crew because it cannot “fully detect, replicate, or report the sensory information — the sounds, smells and vibrations — that a flight crew depends on to operate safely.”
The group also said it was apprehensive about the cybersecurity ramifications and communications delays between pilots in a cockpit and pilots on the ground. As a result, the group is working to keep the provision out of the final version of the FAA reauthorization bill as the legislation moves to the Senate.
“ALPA will continue to use every resource we have to ensure that airlines keep pilots on the flight deck and maintain the highest levels of safety,” ALPA said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “The most important safety asset on every passenger or cargo airline is an adequately rested, fully qualified, well-trained pilot and copilot. The flying public trust pilots, not programmers, to maintain safety. Today, more than 160 ALPA pilots are on Capitol Hill, encouraging their lawmakers to remove Section 744 from the FAA Reauthorization bill and keep flying safe.”
In May, the group’s Executive Board unanimously backed a resolution that approved spending “significant additional resources on advocacy efforts” to remove the provision from the final measure.
The group launched an effort this month urging individuals to submit a “call to action” urging their senators and other members of Congress to “protect aviation safety and airline pilot careers” by removing the “dangerous provision” before the bill passes in the Senate.
The group also initiated a social media campaign this month in opposition to the measure featuring messages, images and videos for users to share. For example, one of the images says “At 35,000 feet, who would you trust on the flight deck: a pilot or a programmer?”
But experts such as Bob Poole said he believes it would be wise to conduct research on the issue.
“Clearly, research is designed to not only see how feasible this is, but are there safety problems that we should be aware of, are there safety problems that make it unwise,” said Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation. “That’s the point of research — to find out.”
“To basically say ‘you must not do that research’ is kind of like censorship,” he added. “It’s like saying ‘that’s dangerous knowledge. We don’t dare have that out there’ because the status quo might have to change.”
The provision was introduced by Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee “to provide for research and development on what the possibilities may be for single pilot commercial cargo aircraft, particularly given the importance of artificial intelligence and vehicle autonomy in all modes of transportation as a science and technology area,” the committee said.
“We know that other nations and foreign corporations are pursuing this research, and Section 744 works to maintain U.S. leadership in global aviation technology, which is crucial for the FAA and for our American aviation market,” a committee spokesperson told the Washington Examiner.
“While the chairman is not advocating for implementation of single-piloted cargo aircraft at this time, authorizing and conducting the research is crucial,” the spokesperson added. “We have also accounted for flight safety in this provision by strictly limiting the language to only require the FAA to establish a research and development program, review existing research in consultation with NASA, and report back to Congress.”
Poole said it was a “big question mark” what the Senate’s response to the provision would be, but predicted there could be a “50-50 chance” the measure would pass in Congress. He added that he hoped there were enough “cool heads” in the Senate to push for an “unbiased” study on single-piloted cargo aircraft.
“We have so much work going on with drones and autonomous vehicles on the ground and in the air that this seems like a natural thing to study at this point,” Poole said.
