Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary: Who Needs a Copilot?

[Andre]

Who needs a copilot?

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]

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]

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...

 

[JaredJames]

Also worth pointing out, in a total power loss situation (aka, no computers), you need both pilots to even attempt to land it.

 

[Andre]

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]

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]

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 can't 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]

A couple of reports here:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...cted-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]

There's probably more redundancy in an airplane than just the pilots. I see room for a lot of savings here.

 

[JaredJames]

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 let's 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.

 

[Andre]

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 can't 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 http://artsci.wustl.edu/~grussell/epistemicviciousness.pdf

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.

 

[lisab]

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!

 

[lisab]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

Two wings, for example. What a waste!

Oh and about single handed emergencies, problems with dead pilots are offset by mishaps due to crew coordination problems.

 

[Andre]

...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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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 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]

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?

 

[Andre]

Fighter or airliner pilot by chance?

1900 hrs F-5, 600 hrs F-16 and a lot of other flying things.

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]

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 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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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 occurring.

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]

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]

"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.

 

[Andre]

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 occurring.

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[turbo]

If Ryanair were to cut back to one pilot, their insurance company would drop them like a hot potato - no more flights for Ryanair.

 

[Andre]

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. 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 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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

How about

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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]

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.

[facetious]
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?
[/facetious]

Apples and oranges.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

You guys should google CATIII-C landing.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[lisab]

You guys should google CATIII-C landing.

Wow that's really amazing/scary!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI&feature=related

 

[Cyrus]

Wow that's really amazing/scary!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI&feature=related

It can only be legally done with an autopilot. Not maunal flying allowed - zero pilots necessary.