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

[Andre]

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 license 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]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

So again fear rules, we had a thread about 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, there is no fighting fear as far as I know.

 

[nismaratwork]

So again fear rules, we had a thread about 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, 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.

 

[lisab]

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:

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]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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

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.