View Full Version : No more copilot?
Who needs a copilot? (http://www.gadling.com/2010/09/06/ryanair-ceo-questions-the-need-for-the-co-pilot-wants-to-repla/)
Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary is making the news again. And as usual, the news is controversial and absurd. O'Leary is apparently fed up with paying for two people to fly his planes, and wants to convince safety regulators that one pilot would be more than enough. In a magazine interview, O'Leary had the following to say:
"Why does every plane have two pilots? Really, you only need one pilot. Let's take out the second pilot. Let the bloody computer fly it." ...
I was usually alone too, flying, so why not? Or?
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 11:40 AM
I'd love to see this guy if he was on one of his 'solo pilot' flights when the pilot is taken ill (heart attack maybe???).
Edit: I fly alone too (or at least the only person capable of flying the aircraft) however, if something happens to me and I am incapacitated, it is only me in danger if the aircraft crashes and you could say I (and any passengers who agree to fly in a light aircraft with me) took that chance when I took off as a solo pilot.
In an airliner, you have a lot of peoples lives on the line. You could argue the computer could land in an emergency, but you have to factor in issues such as who would set the computer to land the aircraft? (ok, perhaps the other crew members with radio instructions, but then you're relying on them doing a hell of a lot and they aren't qualified for it in the first place, hence having pilots)
DaveC426913
Sep7-10, 11:45 AM
I was usually alone too, flying, so why not? Or?
Perhaps the operative word here is 'alone'. i.e. if you die you don't take a dozen passengers with you... :smile:
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 11:46 AM
Also worth pointing out, in a total power loss situation (aka, no computers), you need both pilots to even attempt to land it.
So how often has it happened that there was a mishap with a -say- single seat fighter airplane due to incapacitation of the pilot, (other than hypoxia, which would have affected all crew), that could have been prevented if there had been a multi crew?
The technology is there to build in a button "auto-land" for the cabin crew to push, should there be a dead pilot.
DaveC426913
Sep7-10, 11:56 AM
So how often has it happened that there was a mishap with a -say- single seat fighter airplane due to incapacitation of the pilot, (other than hypoxia, which would have affected all crew), that could have been prevented if there had been a multi crew?
The technology is there to build in a button "auto-land" for the cabin crew to push, should there be a dead pilot.
Yeah. I just don't think you'll ever get buy-in from the public. Even if it worked fine, the first time something went wrong for any reason, this would be blamed.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 11:58 AM
So how often has it happened that there was a mishap with a -say- single seat fighter airplane due to incapacitation of the pilot, (other than hypoxia, which would have affected all crew), that could have been prevented if there had been a multi crew?
The technology is there to build in a button "auto-land" for the cabin crew to push, should there be a dead pilot.
I'll get some links for the first point shortly.
Edit: This isn't a case of accidents being avoided if there had been multiple crew members. A pilot dying in a fighter aircraft or in a light aircraft, if solo is a case of bad luck (don't mean to sound harsh there) and a chance they took. You are talking about removing crew members from passenger liners, which means all systems on board have a redundant backup aside from the pilot. Which, if he/she was to become incapacitated would be more than bad luck for the passengers.
'Autoland' couple of points: firstly, they would have to say where to land, which would need to be a suitable airfield, choosing a small airfield blindly off a map / computer screen could prove just as deadly as a crash if the runway cant handle the aircraft, which leads to my second point - secondly, the crew would need radio contact to alert the tower at the emergency airfield, which requires knowledge of the radio equipment.
Again. what about total power loss??? It ain't like gliding a cessna 182.
Also, any form of emergency landing really needs the concentration of two pilots.
Strictly speaking, the technology is there for the aircraft to conduct the entire flight itself, but there is a damn good reason they don't do that.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:03 PM
A couple of reports here:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/02/26/pilot-mike-warren-collapses-of-a-suspected-heart-attack-in-cockpit-115875-20331985/
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/19/Pilot-died-of-heart-attack-in-mid-flight/UPI-25531245432466/
OK, I have focused on heart attacks, but the point is, without a second pilot those aircraft would have had significantly lower chances of survival.
Jimmy Snyder
Sep7-10, 12:08 PM
There's probably more redundancy in an airplane than just the pilots. I see room for a lot of savings here.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:12 PM
There's probably more redundancy in an airplane than just the pilots. I see room for a lot of savings here.
Redundancy built in for a reason. It isn't a case of "ooh lets put another one of those in, because we can". Ok, in some cases they do over cook it a bit, bit none-the-less it's there for safety.
I'll get some links for the first point shortly.
'Autoland' couple of points: firstly, they would have to say where to land, which would need to be a suitable airfield, choosing a small airfield blindly off a map / computer screen could prove just as deadly as a crash if the runway cant handle the aircraft, which leads to my second point - secondly, the crew would need radio contact to alert the tower at the emergency airfield, which requires knowledge of the radio equipment.
All doable,
Push the emergency button "land at X". Emergency distress signal is automatically on the transponder with the intention of the computer. Flight path is automatically generated to X, just like Google earth does it, with the drive from X to Y function. Autopilot follows the route and does the right things at the right time.
Really we have drones for years now, capable to do that. Nothing strange about that.
Again. what about total power loss??? It ain't like gliding a cessna 182.
Also, any form of emergency landing really needs the concentration of two pilots.
Any idea how many times I would have crashed not being able to handle that emergency single handed, including the emergency landing? It's just a state of mind.
Total power losses nowadays are extremely remote, with a few back up systems using different techniques. If you still have a total power failure, no matter how many pilots, it's not going to work with the electric jets of nowadays.
But indeed it will take a long time before the public will buy it, a matter of epistemic viciousness (http://artsci.wustl.edu/~grussell/epistemicviciousness.pdf) :tongue:
Another reason why it might not work, is that the skill level of the remaining pilot would need to be a few steps higher. That may be a step too high.
There's probably more redundancy in an airplane than just the pilots. I see room for a lot of savings here.
Two wings, for example. What a waste!
Ryanair is infamous now for making these sorts of "plans". This is the same company that played with the ideas of standing-room only and pay toilets. It gets them a lot of free advertising and it doesn't seem to affect their business.
Apparently they've figured out that there's no such thing as bad publicity (as long as no one actually dies).
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:20 PM
Any idea how many times I would have crashed not being able to handle that emergency single handed, including the emergency landing? It's just a state of mind.
Total power losses nowadays are extremely remote, with a few back up systems using different techniques. If you still have a total power failure, no matter how many pilots, it's not going to work with the electric jets of nowadays.
Ok, let's work through this lot, firstly, power loss in a cessna (or any light aircraft) is a LOT different to an airliner.
I refer you to this flight: Air Canada Flight 143 in which a 767 (so a newish airliner) lost power. It took both pilots to bring that down, one flying the other performing, basically everything else. Remember, only the newest aircraft are heavily computerised (777,747 later models, 787, A380) and so to have such a system on a 737 which is one of the widest used airliners just isn't plausible.
Two wings, for example. What a waste!
http://www.7thgenhonda.com/forum/images/smilies/smiley-rofl.gif
Oh and about single handed emergencies, problems with dead pilots are offset by mishaps due to crew coordination problems.
...I refer you to this flight: Air Canada Flight 143 in which a 767 (so a newish airliner) lost power. It took both pilots to bring that down, one flying the other performing, basically everything else. ....
Again, state of mind, in any single seat figher aircraft, with higher approach speeds and equally complex systems, it takes one pilot to bring it down, one flying and the same one performing, basically everything else.
And I know what I'm talking about.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:26 PM
http://www.7thgenhonda.com/forum/images/smilies/smiley-rofl.gif
Oh and about single handed emergencies, problems with dead pilots are offset by mishaps due to crew coordination problems.
Can I see a link for this statement please? I personally haven't been aware of any coordination problems with pilots (although I have no doubt they do occur) but I can't see how two pilots can be so uncoordinated (2ft away from each other) they face the same issues as airliners with a dead pilot.
Can I see a link for this statement please? I personally haven't been aware of any coordination problems with pilots (although I have no doubt they do occur) but I can't see how two pilots can be so uncoordinated (2ft away from each other) they face the same issues as airliners with a dead pilot.
Offhand, there is this classical instruction movie of the captain looking at the co pilot during the take off roll who looked very down, after his fiancee quit. So the captain said "cheer up boy",
The aircraft came to a halt on its belly a few 1000 feet later, luckely not in flames, so it could be determined why the landing gear was raised before the aircraft was airborne.
meanwhile a publication here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B756X-481G4W4-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1985&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1453629873&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=269f41828a82d0e99f684a77c1194fb0&searchtype=a) dealing with crew co-ordination problems.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:43 PM
Again, state of mind, in any single seat figher aircraft, with higher approach speeds and equally complex systems, it takes one pilot to bring it down, one flying and the same one performing, basically everything else.
Regarding 'state of mind', in a fighter aircraft with an emergency situation, there is a way out of it for the pilot (magic flying seat thing...). and the only life in danger is your own (dependent on what's below).
An airline pilot has the lives of up to 400 people on his hands with no way to 'escape for any of them'.
And I know what I'm talking about.
Fighter or airliner pilot by chance?
Fighter or airliner pilot by chance?
1900 hrs F-5, 600 hrs F-16 and a lot of other flying things.
Here is one (http://www.aviation.go.th/doc/Interim%20Report.pdf)
3. the flight crew co-ordination was insufficient and the flight crew had heavy workloads.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:47 PM
Offhand, there is this classical instruction movie of the captain looking at the co pilot during the take off roll who looked very down, after his fiancee quit. So the captain said "cheer up boy",
The aircraft came to a halt on its belly a few 1000 feet later, luckely not in flames, so it could be determined why the landing gear was raised before the aircraft was airborne.
meanwhile a publication here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B756X-481G4W4-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1985&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1453629873&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=269f41828a82d0e99f684a77c1194fb0&searchtype=a) dealing with crew co-ordination problems.
An interesting sounding article. Will try to read through it at some point.
DaveC426913
Sep7-10, 12:47 PM
So the captain said "cheer up boy",
The aircraft came to a halt on its belly a few 1000 feet later, luckely not in flames, so it could be determined why the landing gear was raised before the aircraft was airborne.
:biggrin:
Regarding 'state of mind', in a fighter aircraft with an emergency situation, there is a way out of it for the pilot (magic flying seat thing...).
Doesn't that work the other way around? If there is not the "nylon let down mark II", wouldn't be the adrenaline extra high to save yer butt.
and the only life in danger is your own (dependent on what's below).
An airline pilot has the lives of up to 400 people on his hands with no way to 'escape for any of them'.
Would that make any difference. A pilot fighting for his own life will not do anything any different if there were 1, 10, 100 etc more lives depending on that. Now two pilots may, fighting each other, in crew miscoordination.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:53 PM
F-16, nice.
I agree, coordination is certainly an issue and yes, so far as the crew being distracted goes it is certainly a major problem.
Back to the original issue, having two pilots uncoordinated, is a big problem, but as per your reports, they show that the crew were distracted and as such not properly following procedures in place. Which is a major factor in the accidents occuring.
If you remove a pilot (let's say the first officer is taken ill and cannot fly), the workload on the remaining pilot increases drastically, all jobs are required to be done by one person not two. As you said above, fighter pilots are required to do everything in an emergency, but in such a case they'd be used to it surely. If you fly a single seat fighter you would be doing everything, emergency or not. On an airliner, one pilot dropping dead means you are alone and having to deal with everything which is not a common experience.
DaveC426913
Sep7-10, 12:57 PM
And I know what I'm talking about.
Then you also know that the skills to manage a fighter jet are a very different than those of a passenger jet.
No one is suggesting that you wouldn't be able to fly one in an emergency but come on, you're acting like they're the same thing.
Then again, I guess I could say the same thing about boating. The skills I use as the skipper of a 20ft sloop are the same as those of a 900ft cruiseliner. It's just a matter of mindset. With the right wind, I could probably bring the Carnival Victory into dock single-handed...
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 12:59 PM
"Doesn't that work the other way around? If there is not the "nylon let down mark II", wouldn't be the adrenaline extra high to save yer butt."
In this case, again as per my above post, the pilot is used to doing everything on his own anyway and so the heightened stress will cause problems but he's still effectively following his normal routine.
"Would that make any difference. A pilot fighting for his own life will not do anything any different if there were 1, 10, 100 etc more lives depending on that. Now two pilots may, fighting each other, in crew miscoordination."
Two pilots in an emergency would be following (hopefully) the specific procedures for dealing with it, and as such working together. If they do not follow said procedures and communicate properly, it is crew error and they cause the problems.
Back to one pilot issues, in the post you quoted I was referring specifically to only having one pilot on the airliner during the emergency. Any person in a situation where the lives of others are on their shoulders, is going to be under more stress than a person who is simply looking after themselves.
F-16, nice.
I agree, coordination is certainly an issue and yes, so far as the crew being distracted goes it is certainly a major problem.
Back to the original issue, having two pilots uncoordinated, is a big problem, but as per your reports, they show that the crew were distracted and as such not properly following procedures in place. Which is a major factor in the accidents occuring.
If you remove a pilot (let's say the first officer is taken ill and cannot fly), the workload on the remaining pilot increases drastically, all jobs are required to be done by one person not two. As you said above, fighter pilots are required to do everything in an emergency, but in such a case they'd be used to it surely. If you fly a single seat fighter you would be doing everything, emergency or not. On an airliner, one pilot dropping dead means you are alone and having to deal with everything which is not a common experience.
And that is very true. It requires a complete change of state of mind. If one man has to do it, he must simply be on a higher training level, like a fighter pilot has to be. But the airliner only has to fly from A to B, the fighter pilot has a mission to accomplish in between those two, so that level of the solo airliner pilot is still not necesarely the same than that of the fighter pilot.
Another factor is fatique. My longest singly flying ferry flight was about 4 hours. Collegues did 6-7 hours. That is demanding. I would not certify solo airline flights with durations over 4 hours.
Back to one pilot issues, in the post you quoted I was referring specifically to only having one pilot on the airliner during the emergency. Any person in a situation where the lives of others are on their shoulders, is going to be under more stress than a person who is simply looking after themselves.
Could you back that up? Really if you're making decisions which would mean differences about your life or death, you are not thinking of others who may die too.
But with monthly simulator training mimicking the most impossible emergencies, it's not uncommon to hear that that was a lot easier in real, than it was in the simulator.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 01:11 PM
Also, are you saying one person, responsible for all the checks and flight requirements of an airliner is going to perform as well as a team of two who share the burden? Training cannot remove the stress of signing off an airliner as 'ready to fly' if there isn't someone to check your judgement.
Another fair point - If you want an airliner pilot to do the job alone, you ideally redesign the cockpit around one person as opposed to a pair. It isn't simply a case of just removing a pilot.
If Ryanair were to cut back to one pilot, their insurance company would drop them like a hot potato - no more flights for Ryanair.
Also, are you saying one person, responsible for all the checks and flight requirements of an airliner is going to perform as well as a team of two who share the burden?
Basically yes, because of a quicker response loop a.k.a. OODA loop or Boyd loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop). At least you don't have to spend and lose response time, judging who has the better proposal. That's why one flies and the other performs the non critical tasks. However calling out an unexpected action for the other to do, takes more time than doing it self. Sometimes too much time
Here is another one (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990120-1):
5) Poor crew co-ordination and missing crew resource management."
~~~~~~~~
Training cannot remove the stress of signing off an airliner as 'ready to fly' if there isn't someone to check your judgement.
I have no idea what that is, I know that it can be a real life saver to perform standard drill emergency reactions instinctively, that has been practiced over and over and over and over.
Another fair point - If you want an airliner pilot to do the job alone, you ideally redesign the cockpit around one person as opposed to a pair. It isn't simply a case of just removing a pilot.
Absolutely
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 01:35 PM
I'm not arguing on the grounds of coordination, as I stated above. I'm looking at all possible eventualities, one of which is losing the pilot. If this happens on a solo pilot airliner (and has on a dual pilot airliner), you face losing hundreds of lives. If it occurs in a single seat fighter jet, it's just bad luck for the pilot, no one is depending on him.
I understand the risks of pilots becoming distracted, but that can happen with a solo pilot, I keep seeing pilot work load in your reports being a factor and if you remove a pilot, you increase the workload clearly not a good thing.
In a fighter aircraft, as with a light aircraft, planning for pilots being incapacitated isn't really there, if it happens on a solo flight it's a bit of bad luck. On an airliner it's a whole different ball game.
I think we are turning in circles, we did that a few times. So I repeat, if you look at all eventualities, you also have to consider the mishaps due to crew co-ordination failure, which would not have happened with a solo pilot, that may be a lot more common than a single pilot failure to cope with the situation.
It's not sure of the workload is increased when you remove a pilot. It depends on his outgoingness; an introvert pilot would have a reduced workload, not having to deal with tiring discussions, co-ordination and gossip.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 02:58 PM
From what I can tell, crew coordination issues seem to be mainly due to distraction, the pilots have too high a work load, some grievance (family death, divorce etc) causes them to lose concentration and not follow procedure. As such, I don't see why these factors would be any less prevalent in a solo pilot affair. I have no doubt they are less common, but the problem still exists.
"It's not sure of the workload is increased when you remove a pilot."
Really? Are you telling me that if you were to take a 747 copilot out of the cockpit and tell the captain to get on with landing, he could do everything just as easy, if not easier without him? Yes, with training you could help reduce the pressure felt by the pilot, but the workload, as in the amount the pilot has to do is going to increase.
As I see it, all you do by removing a pilot is increase the likely hood of an accident if there is an emergency on board. Distractions still exist, but the pilots should be following procedures to ensure they do everything right. Whether there is one, two or ten pilots, if they are distracted and not following exact procedures there is an equal chance of an accident.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 03:04 PM
I do agree though andre, the technology is certainly there to have an aircraft perform the whole flight itself. But that does not mean it should do it. Computers do not 'think', they cannot make informed judgements. You as a fighter pilot should know this. There is nothing like having a human in a fighter jet, no drone can compete with that.
Even if the computer is only assisting the pilot, it can't compensate for a copilot.
As I see it, all you do by removing a pilot is increase the likely hood of an accident if there is an emergency on board.
We are still at square one, aren't we. I have motivated more than once why this is not automatic the case. You can just as well argue that it would reduce the likelyhood of an accident, if it turns out that crew co-ordination problems contributed to the mishap more often than that a single pilot could not handle the workload of an emergency.
You would have to go over all recent mishaps with fast jet/airliner single pilot and dual pilot scenarios to be able to judge which factor prevails.
I do agree though andre, the technology is certainly there to have an aircraft perform the whole flight itself. But that does not mean it should do it. Computers do not 'think', they cannot make informed judgements. You as a fighter pilot should know this. There is nothing like having a human in a fighter jet, no drone can compete with that.
Sure that's very true, that's why the panic button is only in case of a 'dead' pilot, it's an emergency not supposed to happen more than once an eon, in which case the aircraft has all priorities and will have a cleared flight track all the way to landing, like a drone has. If that was not the case, you definitely would have needed the pilot. No doubt about that.
Even if the computer is only assisting the pilot, it can't compensate for a copilot.
That's a statement without substantiation. Most definitely, a human brain must be in the control loop, but I'd expect some reasons why it should be more than one.
Think at it this way, why is the USAF flying multi million dollar machines JSF, F22 etc with just one pilot, if two was safer?
Actually, after some bad F-104 experiences in the 1960's, the German Air Force, have been forced to fly dual seat fighters by law (F4, Tornado), maybe it's an idea to see if that is reflected in the safety records.
DaveC426913
Sep7-10, 03:26 PM
Think at it this way, why is the USAF flying multi million dollar machines JSF, F22 etc with just one pilot, if two was safer?
Again, the driving factors for military personnel and missions have nothing to do with the driving factors for transporting civilian passengers. (Trivially, for one, an air force copilot is not going to turn around and sue the pants off the pilot in the case of a mishap.)
Motivators for military missions is a red herring; it makes absolutely no sense to use as a comparison.
How about (http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/623.pdf)
3-2 PROBABLE CAUSES
- MELTING OF ICE FORMED AT ENGINES INTAKE RESULTED IN WARE
INGESTION AND BOTH ENGINE FLAME OUT.
- FLIGHT CREW FAILED TO OPERATE ENGINE ANTI-ICING SYSTEM.
- FLIGHT CREW WERE BUSY WITH A DISCUSSION NOT RELEVENT TO THEIR
FLIGHT OR THE A/C.
Motivators for military missions is a red herring; it makes absolutely no sense to use as a comparison.
That's a nice term but what is the substantiation to call it a red herring. Both crews are primary controlling an aircraft all the time. The question is if the technical possibilities are advanced enough to allow for a single controller. The single seat fighters show that this is the case, remains the question, if safety is an concern to have one or two pilots.
The consideration is that one pilot may not be able to handle the workload of an emergency (despite the fact that he can handle it in a single seat fighter)
The consideration for a multi crew cockpit is that crew co-ordination requires additional workload and may cause mis-coordination (cheer up).
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 03:45 PM
Ok Andre, I'll put it simply, the argument is clear.
A single seat fighter is designed for a single pilot. All situations must be able to be handled by said pilot.
A multi-crew cockpit is designed for just that. The argument here should not be what is possible if the cockpit is redesigned or if the computers are installed. Mr O'learys argument is a standard aircraft in his fleet could be flown by one pilot. That is, a standard 737 for example. Clearly an unsafe procedure.
You are comparing an aircraft designed for one pilot with an aircraft designed for two. my argument is based on having only one pilot in a 737 (or other ryanair aircraft) cockpit.
DaveC426913
Sep7-10, 03:45 PM
That's a nice term but what is the substantiation to call it a red herring.
Because, quite simply, 'safety for civilian passengers' is not necessarily the primary motivator that trumps all other motivators when it comes to military missions.
There's a very obvious reason why: military missions often have missions that aren't simply transporting civilian passengers. If this were the military's primary duty and civilian safety were the primary motivator, well that would pretty much drop the military's missions to zero, now wouldn't it?
Apples and oranges.
Ok Andre, I'll put it simply, the argument is clear.
A single seat fighter is designed for a single pilot. All situations must be able to be handled by said pilot.
A multi-crew cockpit is designed for just that. The argument here should not be what is possible if the cockpit is redesigned or if the computers are installed. Mr O'learys argument is a standard aircraft in his fleet could be flown by one pilot. That is, a standard 737 for example. Clearly an unsafe procedure.
You are comparing an aircraft designed for one pilot with an aircraft designed for two. my argument is based on having only one pilot in a 737 (or other ryanair aircraft) cockpit.
Whilst it is a legal requirement that all aircraft handling and controlling must be possible from either control position, one can argue that there should be a panic button, it's not there.
So it really depends on the rules and regulations. For practical purposes it would have been no problem, if it wasn't for two major items. It's a gigantic cultural earthquake and, as I argued, most definitely, the pilot must be on a much higher skill level.
pallidin
Sep7-10, 05:16 PM
My unprofessional opinion(I'm a passenger, not a pilot) is this:
As a passenger, when I fly commercial jetliners I feel more comfortable knowing a co-pilot is in the cockpit. Maybe it's just my sense that there is human redundancy to pilot the plane. Not sure.
In any event, I would like to offer what I believe to be another important advantage to having a co-pilot: Training.
With respect to commercial pilots, I would MUCH prefer that, regardless of individual training, that they are required to be a co-pilot with "x" number of hours alongside a full-fledged pilot before they can be a "captain"
Just the way I feel.
As I have tried to demonstrate, safety is not in the number of pilots, the more of them, the more opninions, the longer it takes for critical actions.
And as I said "the pilot must be on a much higher skill level." implies that training and experience. More simulator training and indeed co-piloting. I also suggested that solo pilot flight should be the shorter hauls to avoid fatique. The longer trips should be still be multicrew. So there is still room to prepare the young and brave ones for the single pilot jobs eventually.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 05:57 PM
Andre, what do you consider critical actions?
For me, this would be stall avoidance, collision avoidance, emergency landings etc. Regardless of the number of pilots, the procedure is fixed and practised heavily in training. Therefore, whether in a multi-crew cockpit or a single pilot, you would be following a set procedure.
If there is a situation where the captain and first officer have an opinion and find it necessary to give it, I can't see it being such a 'critical' issue, as if it were so, they would immediately take action based on training.
If it is a life threatening situation and they are in debate about action to take, they are obviously not competent. In a situation such as this, they are endangering the flight.
Reducing the crew to a single pilot may remove the debate side of things, but the action taken by the pilot would still be that of someone who is not competent and may be the wrong action. Leaving you no better off.
You guys should google CATIII-C landing.
DaveC426913
Sep7-10, 07:51 PM
And as I said "the pilot must be on a much higher skill level." implies that training and experience. More simulator training and indeed co-piloting.
At what cost? Double? Then where is the gain in losing a pilot?
No. The point of the argument is less than what we have now, since we are "obviously" overdoing it now.
You guys should google CATIII-C landing.
Wow :surprised that's really amazing/scary!
EgeT-F9-1KI&feature=related
Wow :surprised that's really amazing/scary!
EgeT-F9-1KI&feature=related
It can only be legally done with an autopilot. Not maunal flying allowed - zero pilots necessary.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 08:21 PM
Your point being Cyrus...
(I mean it's a cracking video but we know about autoland, now get it to auto take off and we'll be in business)
Your point being Cyrus...
(I mean it's a cracking video but we know about autoland)
Think about the discussion in this thread.
Now think about who is trusted to fly the airplane in the most severe conditions.
Still don't see my point? I was hoping it was farily obvious....
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 08:26 PM
Think about the discussion in this thread.
Now think about who is trusted to fly the airplane in the most severe conditions.
Still don't see my point? I was hoping it was farily obvious....
The airport beacons give the computer what it requires to navigate and perform the landing (along with with various other onboard systems), if you provided the pilot with 'readable' data from the same beacons, there is no reason they cannot perform the landing.
Edit: in fact, with a good gps system and the basic instruments ahead of you, that landing can be performed quite easily. Years ago, pilots had to do it themselves without the aid of computers.
The airport beacons give the computer what it requires to navigate and perform the landing (along with with various other onboard systems), if you provided the pilot with 'readable' data from the same beacons, there is no reason they cannot perform the landing.
You have never flown an airplane in your life, or shot an ILS. This is very obvious... :rofl:
Ignorance is bliss.
Edit: in fact, with a good gps system and the basic instruments ahead of you, that landing can be performed quite easily. Years ago, pilots had to do it themselves without the aid of computers.
What you are describing is a GPS based approach, which is still not done by people in CATII-III IMC conditions.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 08:32 PM
I hold a PPL Cyrus, I have done zero visibility flying. Using airport beacons to navigate back to the airfield.
I know you don't like wiki but heres a clip: "An instrument landing system (ILS) is a ground-based instrument approach system that provides precision guidance to an aircraft approaching and landing on a runway, using a combination of radio signals."
Beacons, providing the aircraft with what it needs to perform the landing.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 08:33 PM
What you are describing is a GPS based approach, which is still not done by people in CATII-III IMC conditions.
Did I say it was? I simply said with a good gps and your instruments you could perform the landing.
I hold a PPL Cyrus, I have done zero visibility flying. Using airport beacons to navigate back to the airfield.
I know you don't like wiki but heres a clip: "An instrument landing system (ILS) is a ground-based instrument approach system that provides precision guidance to an aircraft approaching and landing on a runway, using a combination of radio signals."
Beacons, providing the aircraft with what it needs to perform the landing.
If you have a PPL and think its 'easy' to fly in IMC at 0-0 minimums, I'm never flying anywhere near you. :surprised:
There is a reason why these types of landings are performed by double and triple redundant autopilot systems, and not by pilots.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 08:34 PM
If you have a PPL and think its 'easy' to fly in IMC at 0-0 minimums, I'm never flying anywhere near you. :surprised:
Again, did I say I find it easy? Where are you getting this stuff from?
Did I say it was? I simply said with a good gps and your instruments you could perform the landing.
Good for you. This is a crock.
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 08:41 PM
Good for you. This is a crock.
So if you didn't have an ILS system on board and you needed to land, what would you do?
So if you didn't have an ILS system on board and you needed to land, what would you do?
Fly somewhere where you can see the runway and land there. You do realize that a CAT-II or III you can't even see the ground to flare - and you think a pilot can do this with a 'good gps and instrument?' Ooooo-kayyyyy. :rolleyes:
JaredJames
Sep7-10, 08:48 PM
If the airfield vectors you onto the runway and your instruments are set correctly, why could you not fly a raw data approach? Definitely not easy, if anything extremely risky, but if you (for whatever reasons) don't have the ability to leave the bad weather region (fuel limitations etc) then you have to do something.
If the airfield vectors you onto the runway and your instruments are set correctly, why could you not fly a raw data approach? Definitely not easy, if anything extremely risky, but if you (for whatever reasons) don't have the ability to leave the bad weather region (fuel limitations etc) then you have to do something.
If you have a working VOR, you can do a step down approach. But getting verbal vectors to a runway in IMC? ....shudderr....That's a death sentence :surprised. Thats why you have 45 minutes reserve fuel - to go somewhere else. It would take an absolute moron of a pilot to go somewhere with no alternate airport in bad weather!
You really think the tower saying "turn left, turn right, go up, now down" is going to help you here?
EgeT-F9-1KI&feature=related
There going to find pieces of your airplane over several miles.
If you have a working VOR, you can do a step down approach. But getting verbal vectors to a runway in IMC? ....shudderr....That's a death sentence :surprised.
In the old days when men power was still cheap, we used to do Ground Controlled Approaches (GCA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-controlled_approach) assuming that the standard ILS (http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/ils.htm) (instrument landing system) was too susceptible for jamming/interference. The GCA radar approach was cat II rated with a decision height of 200 feet and some 900 meters visibility. The guidance was done by a guy who would talk constantly - non stop, giving instructions for the last four five miles of the final approach, something like:
Drifting slightly left of course, turn right two degrees - heading 207, on glidepath, back on course; turn left one degree heading 208; getting slightly above the glidepath; ease her down, one mile to go; back on glide path; resume normal rate of descent; on centre line, heading good, approaching decision height; look ahead for the runway; etc etc No problem, daily routine 25 years ago, regardless of zero or 400 passengers.
Anyway the youtube approach shows that we have the automated techniques to perform better landings than a pilot can do, just as easy as a drone can fly from A to B. But that doesn't mean that you can eliminate a pilot altogether like in the engineers dream, for the simple reason that you would eliminate airmanship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airmanship) and situational awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_awareness) which are the main tools of a superior pilot. Remember the definition of that
A superior pilot is a pilot who uses his superior judgement to avoid getting into situations that require his superior skills.
Autopilots are not in that category, but you may wonder how many superior pilots are required to witness the autoland system doing its work.
Why are you under the impression that a pilot is more situationally aware than an autopilot? That's the whole reason why the FAA is moving over to the ADS-B transponder system in NextGeN. Pilots suck at situational awareness and need a GPS based TCAS to help them out. A computer can keep track of other aircraft thousands of times a second while flying the airplane, in fog, and optimizing a 4-D based trajectory - all at once.
Also, was your verbal IMC landings done to minimums like in this video? You said the ceilings were 900 meters, thats almost 3k feet. Huge difference.
Why are you under the impression that a pilot is more situationally aware than an autopilot? That's the whole reason why the FAA is moving over to the ADS-B transponder system in NextGeN. Pilots suck at situational awareness and need a GPS based TCAS to help them out. A computer can keep track of other aircraft thousands of times a second while flying the airplane, in fog, and optimizing a 4-D based trajectory - all at once.
Also, was your verbal IMC landings done to minimums like in this video? You said the ceilings were 900 meters, thats almost 3k feet. Huge difference.
Autopilots have no idea about microbursts and windshear, trucks on the runway, crosswind, other aircraft with emergencies getting priority, hail and lightning damage to circumnavigate. Making early decisions about diversions when headwind was stronger than forecasted and the fuel running lower than expected etc etc, but above all, hard pieces in the air, not seen on radar.
Maybe reread what I said about the limits: Cat II, Ceiling 200 feet, visibility 900 (later 800) meters.
Autopilots have no idea about microbursts and windshear, trucks on the runway, crosswind, other aircraft with emergencies getting priority, hail and lightning damage to circumnavigate. Making early decisions about diversions when headwind was stronger than forecasted and the fuel running lower than expected etc etc, but above all, hard pieces in the air, not seen on radar.
Pilots can't see mircrobursts or windshear either. What do you mean by cant see crosswinds? Autopilots can land in crosswind. All of the things you listed are easily done by a computer...in fact a computer already does most, if not all of it. The pilot enters in a destination and way points and the Flight Management System (FMS) computes a path.
Maybe reread what I said about the limits: Cat II, Ceiling 200 feet, visibility 900 (later 800) meters.
Ah, Ceiling 200 feet, my mistake.
Pilots can't see mircrobursts or windshear either.
But a superior pilot knows where they can be found, looking at the clouds.
edit: moreover if the airspeed suddenly increases, he will initiate a missed approach, going full power, knowing that he just entered the microburst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microburst), whereas the autopilot will decrease trust ad adjust attitude to reduce the airspeed again, and in doing so just made a fatal error leading to the crash.
What do you mean by cant see crosswinds? Autopilots can land in crosswind.
but the superior pilot has just decided that the cross wind gusts are above limits even if the steady state winds are well below.
But there is nothing to do for a autopilot if the balloon or glider is not on the radar.
Anyway, maybe compare it with driving in traffic, I don't think a lot of people fancy automatic driverless cars, perfectly capable of driving exactly where they need to go, but lacking anticipation of children running behind the shiny red balls that cross the road.
By the time that the automatic systems are capable of that kind of drivemanship / situational awareness, one may wonder what humans still are doing on this world.
And for those who think that they can make flying fully automatic, see if you can work in a flying company for a few months and evaluate all the incidents, near incidents, irregulaties, unexpected changes in situations, to see if an automatic system could have coped with that.
True enough Andre. Although, the technology is getting there quicker than you think :wink:.
JaredJames
Sep8-10, 12:51 PM
I have to agree that so far as take off, fly the route, land goes it is certainly capable with current technology. It is the additional factors as andre has pointed out that make a human pilot 'better' than current computer systems. Does anyone know if they've conducted tests of pilotless drones in crowded sky conditions such as those found around a major airport? (Pilotless as in flying under its own control, not like the predator drones)
I think the human factor is more important when it comes to military operations as opposed to civilian, but none-the-less required.
DaveC426913
Sep8-10, 01:14 PM
... see if an automatic system could have coped with that.
Strangely, there is a strong double standard when it comes to automated versus human systems.
If a human were flying when an accident occurred, the public will automatically assume she did the best she could but it wasn't enough. It is forgiveable.
If a computer were flying when an accident occurred, we will automatically assume the computer made a mistake and/or couldn't handle the sitation. A pilot should have been there to oversee it. This is unforgiveable.
I have to agree that so far as take off, fly the route, land goes it is certainly capable with current technology. It is the additional factors as andre has pointed out that make a human pilot 'better' than current computer systems. Does anyone know if they've conducted tests of pilotless drones in crowded sky conditions such as those found around a major airport? (Pilotless as in flying under its own control, not like the predator drones)
I think the human factor is more important when it comes to military operations as opposed to civilian, but none-the-less required.
UAVs are not allowed to fly in the NAS (National Air System) unless under very special conditions near unpopulated areas.
JaredJames
Sep8-10, 01:36 PM
UAVs are not allowed to fly in the NAS (National Air System) unless under very special conditions near unpopulated areas.
What about a demo setup (abandoned airfield with simulated traffic, perhaps other drones)?
I suppose if there was a central system which monitored all aircraft and issued instructions, it could handle airspace seperation far better than a human system.
I wouldn't expect them to fly a drone straight into LAX, but it would be nice to see some sort of test setup where they could actually try out an automated airfield system. In my opinion, having a central system issue commands to the aircraft autopilot, would give far better control of the airspace.
What about a demo setup (abandoned airfield with simulated traffic, perhaps other drones)?
I suppose if there was a central system which monitored all aircraft and issued instructions, it could handle airspace seperation far better than a human system.
I wouldn't expect them to fly a drone straight into LAX, but it would be nice to see some sort of test setup where they could actually try out an automated airfield system. In my opinion, having a central system issue commands to the aircraft autopilot, would give far better control of the airspace.
Google NextGen. The current system is a combination of human controlled/ airspace automation. You can read more about ATC by looking for the FAA document JO 7110.65T.
mugaliens
Sep9-10, 06:56 AM
I have to agree that so far as take off, fly the route, land goes it is certainly capable with current technology. It is the additional factors as andre has pointed out that make a human pilot 'better' than current computer systems. Does anyone know if they've conducted tests of pilotless drones in crowded sky conditions such as those found around a major airport? (Pilotless as in flying under its own control, not like the predator drones)
While UAVs such as the Global Hawk are perfectly capable of taking off, flying the route, and landing totally without human intervention, "see and avoid" still applies, which is why they're not allowed to fly in the national aerospace system, except under certain conditions. Even so, the Global Hawk has an operator connected to it via satlink and monitoring it at all times. The radios aboard the drone allow the operator to talk to ATC the same as any piloted aircraft, and the operator is required to be a certified IFR pilot.
Should the satlink ever fail, the Global Hawk is programmed to squawk 7600 or 7700, depending on the situation, broadcast its intentions to ATC, fly to the nearest suitable military airfield, land, stop, and wait for a tow.
I think the human factor is more important when it comes to military operations as opposed to civilian, but none-the-less required.
I agree.
I think the human factor is more important when it comes to military operations as opposed to civilian, but none-the-less required.
One more then. I think not.
Whilst the human factor, as in anticipating the child running behind the shiny red ball, may be much more present in military air combat scenarios, it's equally important to break off the landing procedure after picking up that fire truck on the runway, that inadvertenly was sent there to pick up the remains of that dead deer hit by another aircraft, due to miss co-ordination between the local tower air traffic controller and ground control.
JaredJames
Sep9-10, 10:09 AM
One more then. I think not.
Whilst the human factor, as in anticipating the child running behind the shiny red ball, may be much more present in military air combat scenarios, it's equally important to break off the landing procedure after picking up that fire truck on the runway, that inadvertenly was sent there to pick up the remains of that dead deer hit by another aircraft, due to miss co-ordination between the local tower air traffic controller and ground control.
I'm not entirely sure why you quoted me on this one, I was referring to the fact that military missions, where the use of deadly force (missiles etc) may be present, a human being there assessing the action about to be taken is important (unaccounted variables for instance).
As you said yourself, the civilian side of things is simply A to B and as such those judgements are not required. So, in as far as human judgement is concerned, I'd say the military requires a human face in the cockpit far more than civilian. All of the problems you have pointed out for civilian also exist for the military, but not all the military situations are present for civilian airliners (or do 'fire engines scraping up dead deer' scenarios only occur at civilian airfields?).
You keep mentioning crew coordination as a reason to reduce crew numbers. In which case a purely computerised system is perfect as all instructions will follow the same scrutiny and procedures each time regardless of how much work the computer is doing and no distractions possible. It is simply a case of emulating human 'awareness' that is required.
A good sensor based system (cameras, motion tracking etc) focussed on the runway and taxiways would be able to alert any aircraft to possible hazards, in much the same way as TCAS works now (theres something on the runway, in this case a fire engine, go around). So your "shiny red ball" scenario could be avoided in most eventualities unless it was extremely sudden, in which case neither human nor computer could respond in time. (I understand it is significantly more complex than this, but the principle is sound).
I'm not entirely sure why you quoted me on this one, I was referring to the fact that military missions, where the use of deadly force (missiles etc) may be present, a human being there assessing the action about to be taken is important (unaccounted variables for instance).
As you said yourself, the civilian side of things is simply A to B and as such those judgements are not required. So, in as far as human judgement is concerned, I'd say the military requires a human face in the cockpit far more than civilian. All of the problems you have pointed out for civilian also exist for the military, but not all the military situations are present for civilian airliners (or do 'fire engines scraping up dead deer' scenarios only occur at civilian airfields?).
It actually happened to me a few decades ago, but if you'd want to express the importance of catching such an eventuality in number of potential casualties, should it have gone unnoticed, then obviously in a civilian scenario, it would have been much more important.
You keep mentioning crew coordination as a reason to reduce crew numbers. In which case a purely computerised system is perfect as all instructions will follow the same scrutiny and procedures each time regardless of how much work the computer is doing and no distractions possible. It is simply a case of emulating human 'awareness' that is required.
...about which I have said, that would wonder if this level of automation can ever be reached, as it requires anticipation of sometimes new possible scenarios. That's the same discussion if AI can ever reach the level of natural intelligence.
skeptic2
Sep9-10, 10:27 AM
To take this another step, The Federal Railroad Administration has mandated a Positive Train Control system be in operation by 2015. This system will control speeds and stop the train if the engineer fails to do so and will be fully redundant. Already people are asking if, with that system in place, there really needs to be an engineer on board the train. It's not as if an engineer can avoid an accident by swerving or braking.
JaredJames
Sep9-10, 10:58 AM
It actually happened to me a few decades ago, but if you'd want to express the importance of catching such an eventuality in number of potential casualties, should it have gone unnoticed, then obviously in a civilian scenario, it would have been much more important.
Couldn't agree more.
...about which I have said, that would wonder if this level of automation can ever be reached, as it requires anticipation of sometimes new possible scenarios. That's the same discussion if AI can ever reach the level of natural intelligence.
I agree regarding awareness, however, if you were to look at a system which monitored the airfield roughly as I described above, I don't see how anything 'new' could occur. If the system had a high enough resolution so far as watching the airfield goes (can pick out objects relatively small in size which endanger aircraft), it could keep track of all things moving around the airfield in much the same way radar looks to the sky (although significantly more complicated). In such a case, you could argue the monitoring system is 'aware' of everything on the airfield and capable of making decisions (although they would be mainly predetermined - stop aircraft taxiing, go around etc).
Speaking of coordination problems. How many computers are there in a plane and aren't they coordinated and switched off if they don't agree? :devil:
Or was it a space shuttle?
JaredJames
Sep9-10, 11:08 AM
Speaking of coordination problems. How many computers are there in a plane and aren't they coordinated and switched off if they don't agree? :devil:
Or was it a space shuttle?
Yes aircraft have that system, I believe it's a 'democratic' style system where they compare the readings and go with the majority. e.g. 3 computers compare readings, if one disagrees it's ignored. A simplistic description but basically there.
DaveC426913
Sep9-10, 12:17 PM
Yes aircraft have that system, I believe it's a 'democratic' style system where they compare the readings and go with the majority. e.g. 3 computers compare readings, if one disagrees it's ignored. A simplistic description but basically there.
Is this primarily for redundancy in the system? Or redundancy in the decision?
If they're running identical programs, under what circumstance would they disagree?
1] One of the computers goes wonky. Redundancy in the system ensures two others can take up the task.
2] Each computer is given differing parameters of decision-making (importance, optimism, pessimism, etc). They can arrive at different conclusions even when all given the same data.
I'm sure it's a little of both but I imagine primarily it's #2.
Speaking of coordination problems. How many computers are there in a plane and aren't they coordinated and switched off if they don't agree? :devil:
Or was it a space shuttle?
Well take the F-16 flight control computer, which basically translates a desire of the pilot indicated by the stick position into a continuous control signal that does everything to hold that. That sounds very basic but it isn't. Moreover the instability of aircraft requires constant computer steered corrections. It's rather hard, but not impossible to do that manually.
The flight control computer is quadruple. Three branches are actually doing the steering, one is in standbye, that is not connected, but operating.
The steering signal is the average of the three and all three are constantly monitored on deviations. As soon as one branch gives a signal exceeding X from the other two, it is kicked out automatically and the reserve system jumps in. The pilot gets a warning.
Should one of the three remaining branches again produce an signal outside the acceptable range then it is kicked out too and the aircraft continues on the two remaining computer branches. But I havent heard that this ever has happened.
hamster143
Sep9-10, 04:14 PM
Aside from the questions about autolanding panic buttons & such, I don't see how this is going to make sense financially. I did some ballpark calculations and it seems to me that losing the copilot would save the company at most $4 per passenger, probably less, for a 3-hour flight.
why is the USAF flying multi million dollar machines JSF, F22 etc with just one pilot, if two was safer?
Could be because weight and space in those machines are at a premium. Just the second pilot, his suit and his ejection seat are going to weigh around 200 kg. In a plane that weighs 10-12 tons, that's significant.
And those crash very often anyway for unrelated reasons, so the reduction in risk due to having a second pilot would be negligible. If commercial aircraft crashed as frequently as, say, F-16's, nobody would fly them.
Aside from the questions about autolanding panic buttons & such, I don't see how this is going to make sense financially. I did some ballpark calculations and it seems to me that losing the copilot would save the company at most $4 per passenger, probably less, for a 3-hour flight.
which is a significant portion of the earning per passenger. Just check the fares of easyjet.
Anyway, also included training costs, expenses like hotels, etc, in that figure? which is likely a multitude of his salary.
Could be because weight and space in those machines are at a premium. Just the second pilot, his suit and his ejection seat are going to weigh around 200 kg. In a plane that weighs 10-12 tons, that's significant.
And those crash very often anyway for unrelated reasons, so the reduction in risk due to having a second pilot would be negligible. If commercial aircraft crashed as frequently as, say, F-16's, nobody would fly them.
Several fighters are standard in double seat like the F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, European Tornado albeit that the second crew member is weapon system operator (WSO), but it still would reduce the workload of the pilot, whereas the WSO is capable of handing the aircraft. The question is if that is reflected in the safety records of these aircraft. Are they safer being operated by two? Don't hold your breath.
hamster143
Sep9-10, 05:05 PM
which is a significant portion of the earning per passenger.
$4 out of the ticket price of $300 is a minuscule reduction in operating costs that can be easily cancelled out by any number of things, like higher insurance costs or passengers' slight aversion to fly on single-pilot aircraft.
The question is if that is reflected in the safety records of these aircraft. Are they safer being operated by two? Don't hold your breath.
That's because their safety is poor for reasons that are unrelated to the number of pilots.
Commercial aircraft crash, on average, once per 3 million flight hours. Suppose that losing the copilot quadruples the risk (not an unreasonable assumption, given that general aviation aircraft, usually single-piloted, tend to crash 50 times more frequently than big airliners.) That's one additional incident per one million flight hours.
Suppose that the differential incident rate is the same for fighter jets (one crash that can be prevented by having a second pilot, per million flight hours).
But, since the cumulative crash rate for USAF F-16's since their introduction is on the order of 35 per million flight hours, reducing that by 1 would make no visible difference.
$4 out of the ticket price of $300 is a minuscule reduction in operating costs that can be easily cancelled out by any number of things, like higher insurance costs or passengers' slight aversion to fly on single-pilot aircraft.
I see I can get from Belfast to Nice for 25 pounds
Suppose that losing the copilot quadruples the risk (not an unreasonable assumption, given that general aviation aircraft, usually single-piloted, tend to crash 50 times more frequently than big airliners.)
Wouldn't that be a bit affriming the consequent fallacy. Couldn't it be that the pilot training, logistics, supportm etc, are on a completely different standard?
Furthermore, repeating once more, how many mishaps in multi crew aircraft would not have occured with a single crew, because the root cause was failing crew co-ordination?
f95toli
Sep10-10, 05:09 AM
$4 out of the ticket price of $300 is a minuscule reduction in operating costs that can be easily cancelled out by any number of things, like higher insurance costs or passengers' slight aversion to fly on single-pilot aircraft.
As Andre has already pointed out: The "typical" ticket price for a Ryan Air flight is nowhere near $300, last time I flew with them I paid something like £70 for a return flight between London(UK) and Haugesund (Norway). $4 per passenger IS significant for them
Btw, Pilots working for Ryan Air are actually quite well paid (as opposed to the cabin crew, they make much less than the cabin crews working for regular airlines)
last time I flew with them I paid something like £70 for a return flight between London(UK) and Haugesund (Norway).
Especially when most of that money is taxes!
Just to emphasize my point on crew co-ordination, this may be a good article (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/training/degree/Training-Safety-Watch_28665.html).
Maybe also an anectdote on personal experience. I happened to work at two different stations as a team shift lead in an air defence command. Whenever the direct command job was executed there are many decisions and procedures to deal with. In one station there was a policy to have permanent teams with the same personel. The other station decided to mix the teams every new shift with other personel all the time.
The fixed teams would each establish their own routines, based on the personal preferences and the insights of the lead, which worked most optimal in high stress situations, everybody knowing exactly what to do; This was especially useful for the team lead, having not to worry about routine procedures and being able to concentrate fully on the decision processes.
however whenever some members had to be shifted around for whatever reason, there would always be little differences in the routine, which would result in a tendency that some tasks would be addressed by more crew members, while other tasks would not be thought of at all. A nighmare for the team lead, since he had to verify that all routine work is done, which detracted from the decision making processes.
Obviously the constant variation of team members worked better in that aspect but it would still lack the team spirit that minimized routine co-ordination.
These are the complications that crews, also aircrew have to deal with. Hence a single crew, performing all tasks, may have a high workload at times, but a high training level enables to do those routine tasks instinctively, without any spending any thoughts on it, Hence the real work, taking the key decisions can still be done unaffectedly.
nismaratwork
Sep10-10, 10:38 AM
When it comes to air travel, reasonable or not the sense of security for passengers is not a small issue. I would hate to be the FIRST airline to tell their customers that they have one human capable of flying the plane on board. I think many would say that they prefer redundancy in all fallible systems, especially ones that can have a heart attack or (more likely in air travel) stroke out.
I'm not sure that I could separate my knowledge of the sophistication of many modern aircraft with a sense of anxiety in such a situation, and I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue from a practical standpoint! $4 Per ticket does you no good if you're losing enough fares because people would rather pay 4 bucks for human redundancy. People pay twice that for a box of goobers at a movie theater... I think many would "splurge" for a co-pilot at an airline that provided one.
JaredJames
Sep10-10, 12:06 PM
I think the issue here has developed into a situation far more complex than it really is.
Ryanair uses aircraft such as the 737. Which is not designed to have only one operator. The cockpit layout is not a good design for a solo pilot situation. Although it can be flown by one person for emergency purposes, it does not mean it is suitable for solo pilot operation continuously.
What is being proposed is to have only one pilot on such aircraft as the 737. Of course it is possible to design an airliner for solo pilot operation, but the cockpit would be radically different and further computerised emergency systems (your 'emergency land' button) would need to be introduced.
We seem to have a number of various discussions going on here, ranging from 'which is better, solo or multi-crew' to 'can we just remove the crew completely' so, I think we need to address the primary issue at hand from the OP, which is Ryanair wanting only one pilot in their current aircraft (unless Mr O'Leary plans on designing his own fleet of solo orientated planes...).
(I am asking this as I fully support the idea of automating aircraft as much as possible, but so far as current aircraft go, I do not see this 'solo pilot' situation being viable.)
When it comes to air travel, reasonable or not the sense of security for passengers is not a small issue. I would hate to be the FIRST airline to tell their customers that they have one human capable of flying the plane on board.Good point. Another point I would like to float out there is that pilots are humans, with human weakness, failings, etc. I would prefer to have the redundancy of a 2-pilot situtuation, in the event that one of them developed a sudden illness, experienced a psychological disturbance, experienced a seizure due a previously un-diagnosed case of epilepsy, sudden onset of a stroke, etc, etc.
I think the issue here has developed into a situation far more complex than it really is.
Ryanair uses aircraft such as the 737. Which is not designed to have only one operator. The cockpit layout is not a good design for a solo pilot situation.
What exactly is wrong with the cockpit layout of the 737 to not suitable for solo operations?
If we have exact details we can address them.
When it comes to air travel, reasonable or not the sense of security for passengers is not a small issue. I would hate to be the FIRST airline to tell their customers that they have one human capable of flying the plane on board. I think many would say that they prefer redundancy in all fallible systems, especially ones that can have a heart attack or (more likely in air travel) stroke out.
I'm not sure that I could separate my knowledge of the sophistication of many modern aircraft with a sense of anxiety in such a situation, and I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue from a practical standpoint! $4 Per ticket does you no good if you're losing enough fares because people would rather pay 4 bucks for human redundancy. People pay twice that for a box of goobers at a movie theater... I think many would "splurge" for a co-pilot at an airline that provided one.
What exactly is the logic?
Anyway for the single pilot concept, a reduced number of pilots also means that their quality selection can be on a higher standard, so the operator can take his pick of the top notch. Who would you rather have in the cockpit? One single topnotch A class pilot or two C class pilots?
And, suppose, just suppose, -not saying that it is true-, but suppose hypothetically that the chance of a mishap due to having a single class A pilot (illness, capacity overload, anything) is 10 times smaller than mishaps due to crew miss co-ordination between class C pilots, what would it take convince the public that in reality the single pilot concept is safer ?
But I don't think I'll see the day that logic prevails over fear.
JaredJames
Sep10-10, 12:47 PM
I'd like to think I have two well trained pilots in the cockpit.
Why are you saying two pilots aren't as well trained as one pilot? You can't compare fighter pilot training to commercial training. You seem to keep repeating that two pilots aren't trained well and one pilot is brilliant. What makes you so sure they'd increase training, and even if they did why would that improve pilot quality?
If they 'improve' the training, that would cost more, plus insurance rises, I can't see there being any saving in that scenario.
No it's not training, it is capabilities. There is no way around it, but some animals are more equal than others. The 100 best persons from your pool to select are simply better in average than the best 200 persons you can select. No way around that.
JaredJames
Sep10-10, 01:01 PM
You assume they choose from the top 100 / 200? Again, this isn't the military where this is the case.
Airlines are driven by costs, the best pilots, although desirable will cost you more. (I'm not saying they don't want the best, but if you advertise a pilots position, the 'best' as you put it are more likely to go for the better paid positions and aren't going to readily apply, especially if the pay isn't particularly good [unless they really need a job]).
dear me, are you trusting your live to a bought pilot?
Pilots have to be licenced, right? They have to demonstrate to be able to fly the thing, and now they have to fly it solo and perform all duties. Hence the new required licence will automatically be on a higher standard, higher automatically means that a certain percentage that would have meet the old standards will not make it to the new one.
The commercial air liner pilot schools, I know, do have a selection procedure, and I know persons who did not pass that. New rules means adaptation of that selection standard.
nismaratwork
Sep10-10, 01:12 PM
What exactly is the logic?
Anyway for the single pilot concept, a reduced number of pilots also means that their quality selection can be on a higher standard, so the operator can take his pick of the top notch. Who would you rather have in the cockpit? One single topnotch A class pilot or two C class pilots?
And, suppose, just suppose, -not saying that it is true-, but suppose hypothetically that the chance of a mishap due to having a single class A pilot (illness, capacity overload, anything) is 10 times smaller than mishaps due to crew miss co-ordination between class C pilots, what would it take convince the public that in reality the single pilot concept is safer ?
But I don't think I'll see the day that logic prevails over fear.
Your last sentence is the entire point of my post!
Ivan Seeking
Sep10-10, 01:16 PM
You assume they choose from the top 100 / 200? Again, this isn't the military where this is the case.
Airlines are driven by costs, the best pilots, although desirable will cost you more. (I'm not saying they don't want the best, but if you advertise a pilots position, the 'best' as you put it are more likely to go for the better paid positions and aren't going to readily apply, especially if the pay isn't particularly good [unless they really need a job]).
Indeed, the fallacy is in thinking that the dollars saved by not hiring one pilot, go to the next pilot.
But I don't think I'll see the day that logic prevails over fear.
Your last sentence is the entire point of my post!
Don't think that I have any illusion that my plee here is going to advance the day that this single pilot concept could happen one single second earlier. I consider it merely an exercise in logic, challenging people to think.
nismaratwork
Sep10-10, 01:32 PM
Don't think that I have any illusion that my plee here is going to advance the day that this single pilot concept could happen one single second earlier. I consider it merely an exercise in logic, challenging people to think.
Then I think you have some good points, but in this case it's shouting into a deep, dark cavern. People already feel deeply out of control as passengers on a plane, so they feel the need to use pilots as proxies for that control. If you want to advance your ideas, I would think that figuring out how to change that psychological effect would be the first step. I like how you think, even if I don't agree with all of your conclusions however.
So again fear rules, we had a thread about (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=426687) that a little earlier that ended in buying stock. However it made me realize beforehand that it would go nowhere in the first place like this post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=426687), there is no fighting fear as far as I know.
nismaratwork
Sep10-10, 03:18 PM
So again fear rules, we had a thread about (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=426687) that a little earlier that ended in buying stock. However it made me realize beforehand that it would go nowhere in the first place like this post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=426687), there is no fighting fear as far as I know.
There is manipulation as a means of easing fear; you cannot take it head on with logic however. Use your logic to formulate a means of attack on the roots of fear, or to manipulate perceptions so that it seems to be advantageous to fear something else. That is how you fight fear unless you are willing to educate HUGE numbers of people, and get lucky.
While the arguments between one or two pilots have merit on both sides, I think we still have a ways to go before zero pilot is common:
Errant drone near DC almost met by fighter jets (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39082772)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military almost launched fighter jets and discussed a possible shoot-down when an errant Navy drone briefly veered into restricted airspace near the nation's capital last month, a senior military official said Thursday.
That whole area is fairly densely populated, it could have ended badly. But it would have been quite an air show!
Office_Shredder
Sep12-10, 02:29 PM
And, suppose, just suppose, -not saying that it is true-, but suppose hypothetically that the chance of a mishap due to having a single class A pilot (illness, capacity overload, anything) is 10 times smaller than mishaps due to crew miss co-ordination between class C pilots, what would it take convince the public that in reality the single pilot concept is safer ?
If the airline is entirely capable of distinguishing who is a first tier and a second tier pilot, they should be able to put one of each on each flight
mugaliens
Sep16-10, 10:20 AM
Here's an idea: Let's go with a single class B pilot on the flight deck, but back him or her up with a class A flight management director keeping in touch from airlines headquarters via satcom. The pilot would be in charge, while the FMD would provide a second set of eyes overlooking several flights, but could focus on a single flight if a situation such as an in-flight emergency developed. Complex systems information can be broadcast to airlines headquarters the same as it's done for the Global Hawk.
I'd voted for not having B class pilots, and I'm afraid Office_shredder that airlines don't keep record of A and B class. Also, a ground control pilot via satelite has the problem of reduced situational awareness. He has only a fraction of the information that he pilot in the cockpit has and that with the delay of satcom, dramatically reducing the quality of his command loop or OODA loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop)
So he would probably be too late to intervene to exit that microburst, I discussed earlier, if he'd noticed it at all in the ground station.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.