Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary: Who Needs 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.

 

[JaredJames]

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)

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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...

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]

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 here's 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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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 here's 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. :

There is a reason why these types of landings are performed by double and triple redundant autopilot systems, and not by pilots.

 

[JaredJames]

If you have a PPL and think its 'easy' to fly in IMC at 0-0 minimums, I'm never flying anywhere near you. :

Again, did I say I find it easy? Where are you getting this stuff from?

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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 . 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[/youtub...d pieces of your airplane over several miles.

 

[Andre]

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 .

In the old days when men power was still cheap, we used to do Ground Controlled Approaches (GCA) assuming that the standard ILS (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 and 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.

 

[Cyrus]

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, that's almost 3k feet. Huge difference.

 

[Andre]

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, that's 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.

 

[Cyrus]

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 can't 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.

 

[Andre]

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, 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 can't 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.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

True enough Andre. Although, the technology is getting there quicker than you think .