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

[cristo]

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!

 

[Andre]

Just to emphasize my point on crew co-ordination, 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]

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]

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.)

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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]).

 

[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.