How Safe Would You Feel to Be Flown by a SmartFridge?

Imagine boarding a plane and realising the cockpit is staffed by just one pilot, assisted by advanced automation. This isn’t science fiction but a future the aviation industry is seriously considering. Known as Extended Minimum Crew Operations (eMCO) or Single-Pilot Operations (SPO), this concept is being promoted as a way to address rising costs and pilot shortages.

Whilst the title may slightly stretch the reality of what AI can achieve, automation is something that is being rapidly integrated on a global scale, whether it be in an appliance like the humble fridge or a £100 million aircraft- AI can compliment us in so many aspects of life.

As SPOs inch closer to reality, the debate over their merits and dangers raises a critical question: Would you feel safe?

So what benefits can we expect to see?

For context, a lack of sufficiently advanced technology is not the reason we haven’t seen eMCO’s already. Most modern aircraft nowadays are equipped with automated systems capable of handling the majority of a flight’s operations. Pilots now spend most of their time monitoring these systems, stepping in only during unexpected events. According to an investigation from Boeing, pilot wages make up a significant portion of an airlines total operational costs, and reducing the cockpit crew could save airlines billions annually. For example, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has estimated savings of up to €8 billion a year if SPOs become standard for long-haul flights.

Furthermore, the aviation industry is facing a critical pilot shortage. Boeing projects that 610,000 new pilots will be needed globally by 2040, driven by increased air travel demand and retirements. Now there are two obvious solutions, 1) find a way to increase pilot training ten-fold in a shorter timeframe than ever asked before- whilst maintaining the quality of training, or reduce the number required by CAA/FAA legislation. SPOs explore this second option, to ease the pressure of the shortage-, allowing airlines to operate with fewer pilots while still meeting demand.

Automation has already proven its worth in improving aviation safety. Systems like autopilot, Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS), and terrain awareness tools have reduced accidents caused by human error. Airbus, for instance, is actively developing AI systems capable of assisting or replacing pilots during certain phases of flight.

However, while the benefits are clear, the transition to SPOs would require overcoming significant hurdles, both technical and psychological.

Some critics argue that SPOs are a gamble with passenger safety. Aviation is uniquely reliant on human judgment and teamwork, and the removal of a second pilot could have dire consequences.

The Opposition

One of the most cited concerns is pilot incapacitation. Medical emergencies or sudden fatigue could render the sole pilot unable to perform their duties. In one well-documented case, a Germanwings flight in 2015 tragically crashed after its co-pilot deliberately locked the captain out of the cockpit and took control. Although the circumstances were extreme, they highlight the necessity of redundancy in the cockpit to prevent catastrophic outcomes.

Furthermore, Pilots already work under intense pressure, especially during emergencies. Removing a second pilot would increase the workload for the remaining individual, leaving less room for error. Captain Sam Mayer, an ex-American Airlines pilot with over 35 years of experience in the cockpit,, stated, “In high-stress situations, having two experienced people making decisions can be the difference between life and death. Machines can assist, but they can’t replace human collaboration.”

"Miracle on the Hudson", circa 2009

The two-pilot system is designed to reduce risks associated with human error. A famous example occurred during the 2009 Hudson River landing, where Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles worked together to execute an emergency water landing, saving 155 lives. The question, whilst hypothetical, is would such a feat have been possible with only one pilot?

   Passenger sentiment presents another significant obstacle. According to a 2023 survey by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), 70% of respondents expressed discomfort with the idea of SPOs, citing concerns about safety and the limits of automation.

“The public isn’t ready to accept a single pilot flying a plane,” says aviation analyst Andrew Charlton. “Trust is built on the reassurance that someone is always there to step in when something goes wrong.”

Striking the right Balance

Aviation regulators and manufacturers argue that SPOs don’t mean removing human pilots entirely but rather reimagining their roles. Airbus and Boeing are working on systems that would allow ground-based operators to support pilots remotely during emergencies. Still, this raises ethical and technical questions: Would a remote operator have enough situational awareness to make the right decision? And what happens if the communication link fails?

Additionally, automation is not infallible. The 2018 crash of a Lion Air Boeing 737 Max, attributed to faulty software (the MCAS system on the 737 malfunctioned- 'trimming' the plane nose down, putting it into an uncontrollable dive until it crashed into the Java Sea- some 13 minutes after taking off), underscored the dangers of over-reliance on technology. As Captain Chesley Sullenberger put it, “Automation can be a great tool, but it’s not a replacement for human skill and judgment.”

A Leap Too Far?

The idea of single-pilot operations offers clear financial and logistical benefits, but it also poses profound safety and ethical challenges. The public’s hesitance, coupled with concerns about automation’s limits, suggests that SPOs may still be a few years away.

For now, the reassurance of two skilled pilots in the cockpit remains central to passenger confidence. However as technology continues to evolve, I think its safe to say people need to begin to accept the idea of an incomplete crew, as it may appear sooner than once thought.