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

[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.

 

[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?