Unnecessary first officer... [Archive] - Page 2

R04stb33f

30th Mar 2010, 12:46

Hi all,

It's "been a while since I posted" so here goes...

I'm not a commercial pilot, so please be gentle with me...

I have read this thread with much interest and I notice that a lot of comments have been made with regard to UAV type flying of commercial airliners.

I don't want to get involved with discussing the safety aspects (I think this is going to be done to death without my help) but what about passenger comfort in this scenario?

With the crew up front inevitably in control of the aircraft, they can "feel" what's going on. They can feel the effects of banking, turbulence etc. and rather like a motorcycle rider, have a much better understanding of the limits of his/her machine than the pillion passenger. Also, the pillion passenger feels the effects of cornering, acceleration much more than the rider because the pillion doesn't know exactly when or how the machine will be handled.

In an aircraft, I would assume that, although it is usually flown well within structural limits, the pilots would control the aircraft in such a way that would render the journey comfortable for the passengers, rather like our thoughtful motorcyclist. (Seemingly if structural limits of the aircraft were even close to reached in flight, most people would feel rather unwell...) :yuk:

A UAV pilot, would be completely detached from the situation and would have no sense of the real movement of the aircraft. The only indications that peoples inner ears / stomach would start to bother them would be fluctuations of instrument readouts, sensor readings etc.

Unless the UAV pilot was full time in a full motion SIM type UAV controller monitoring all the sensors / instruments, I doubt that passengers would appreciate this kind of travel...

Does anyone see what I mean? Does passenger comfort even matter under normal circumstances from a flight trajectory / aircraft handling perspective?

Cheers
Rich

Huck

30th Mar 2010, 14:17

Excellent point.

Many's a time I've deviated a half a mile or so off course to miss a dark puffy cloud, even though it wasn't painting on the radar....

niksmathew24

30th Mar 2010, 14:18

There you go...the best answer for the question.
Kudos for the one answer which many couldn't figure.:ok::D

Drop_the_Pilot

30th Mar 2010, 15:08

Yes, pilots make errors. Do these stats also say, why the pilots made those errors? Was it a lack of training, lack of recruitment, insufficient sop's, mistake in the manuals, lack in aircraft/cockpit design, fatigued pilots, weather...? Be careful with stats. (Was it Churchill who once said he would only believe in stats made by himself?)

Your attitude reflects precisely the Airbus philosophy. Mind if i ask whether you're involved in one or other way for an Airbus project? At least you seem familiar with Airbus. Soon after the A320 was introduced 20 years ago, Airbus did some - for an engineer minor, for an aviator major - modifications regarding automatics on 320. Do you remember what and why?

Can you distinguish between what is technically possible and what makes sense? When you design an aircraft/cockpit, do you ask pilots on the line for feedback?

Airlines are organised in lobbies, like eg. in Brussels. They lobby against relaxing flight time and duty limitations (and basically anything which reduces the risk of pilot error), they reduce days off and leave --> more fatigued (and p1ssed off) crew --> increased risk of pilot error --> higher ranks for pilot error in stats --> argument for airlines to remove the pilots from the cockpit.

Military flying is a different world. Who cares, when a fighter jet or a UAV falls from the skies. What counts is only the pilot's life and mission accomplishment. How about commercial aviation? Passengers used to pay to travel from a to b with highest safety standards. The thick safety margin worked out by the industry in the past century is progressively reduced. Whenever I fly an ETOPS segment over a sea, honestly I don't feel comfortable I must say.

What about non-commercial flights? Would general aviation then disappear? What about biz-jets? Since these "private" non-commercial flights share the same airspace, would they also be fully automated? Or would it be a mixed airspace of fully, semi and non-automated commercial and non-commercial flights? How would they interact with each other?

At present, the pilot group is the only one in the world seriously concerned about safety of a flight. 2027 is the year, when flight safety will definitively be thrown over board, sacrificed for the profits of airline managers. Well paid pilots of an airline make up around 5% of the total costs. Get rid of those 5%, add a couple of pax seats more and forget about safety! Welcome to the world of capitalizm. If it's cheaper to kill people than to save their lives, it should be done, the risk will be taken because it's economically correct.

I hope I'll be able to see the first fully automated pilotless airliner accident (I 'm very sorry for the people on board). I wonder how the public's response will be. And in the future stats, there will be no more "70% pilot error", but "95% automatics error". What would the next step be?

Would Warren Buff*t, Ben B*rnanke, Daniel Vas*lla, Michail Chod0rkowski and other bank and industry boss, oligarchs and sheikhs love to be flown in a pilotless aircraft? Air Force One? I would trust the fully automated aircraft after all and every presidential flights are flown pilotless - maybe. Though, their safety measures will still be different, ie. much higher.

Blue Skies

AirRabbit

30th Mar 2010, 15:21

AirRabbit your view that the "F22 as a last manned platform" and "UAVs may inevitably lead to automated civil transport" does not stand up.

This is not an argument for automation at all but one of risk. The purpose of the military aircraft is to achieve a military mission, where the risk of failure is weighed against the gains sought. The machine is simply a platform to achieve that. Replacing humans here is to reduce the risks.

The the civil airline seeks to attract the customer, get them on and off safely, fed, watered, saved significant time (otherwise they would take alternative means), and moreover to keep them happy, confident and assured they are safe in an environment they would otherwise avoid. This assurance of their safety extends to their loved ones, the community, shareholders in the airline etc. Retaining humans in the aircraft is to also reduce the risks.

I for one would never put my family on an aircraft without trusted people up front. Automation applied to reduce risks is great, provided there is an off switch.
Well, you may believe that my view does not stand up … would that you are correct. Should operations personnel resume the responsibilities of operating airlines, your position would be bolstered quite a bit. However, should the current trend – bean counters running the airlines – continue, I wonder whether your view or mine (and mine isn’t optimistic or desired, I assure you!) would prevail.

The airlines are faced with a limited capability of managing costs … and you know them as well as I. You are also aware of the costs over which management has virtually no control. I leave it to you … what is the largest and what is the smallest outlay of corporate funds? Capital expenditures (airplanes, buildings, computers, etc.)? Facilities leasing (buildings, aircraft, computer systems)? Direct operating costs (fuel, landing fees, electricity)? Personnel salaries and benefits? What would be the most logical of these areas to dramatically cut – presuming that dramatic cuts would ever be required?

As for your comments regarding “attracting the customer, getting them on and off safely, fed, watered, saved time, and keeping them happy…” - when applying those same intents to the customers of Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, DHL, and the dozens of other similarly placed operations, the meaning becomes altered quite a bit. What does it mean? I submit that it depends on what decisions are being made in the board rooms of those operators.

rottenray

30th Mar 2010, 16:23

Just to inject a fun bit of philosophy...

Automation/robotics have been used a few times to remove the human element from various dangerous situations - bomb bots, some mining applications, some dangerous manufacturing applications.

But there is no shortage of us "meat robots" and the fact is that the population is increasing rather than decreasing, and things go much happier for everyone when more have paying jobs...

Is it even right to continue automating humans out of their careers?

:confused::confused:

johns7022

31st Mar 2010, 21:26

The point that is missed here.....he is making a comment on the fact that the captain TELLS the copilot what to do, that the copilot is not really a sentient, independent expert, that can think and act on his own.

Rather he is just an extension of the captain, who will make all the decisions, take all the responsibility, and ultimately decide the fate of the aircraft that day.

Honestly, I think this is more of a statement about airline practices, of who is hired to sit right seat...a robot, just happy to be there, following what the capt tells him...or a redundent aviation captain/expert that actualy is there to provide a cushion of safety.

Under the premise in which he is referring, I have to actualy agree with him...your typical 'single pilot' airline captain, with some 400 hour Abinitio copilot, to watch, scold, instruct, is probably just better up there on his own.

Pilot Positive

31st Mar 2010, 21:38

is probably just better up there on his own.

Yes but then he wouldnt have anyone to scold, instruct or complain about his wife/girlfriend to :}

Rushed Approach

31st Mar 2010, 22:33

In the end this debate boils down to whether automatics can be demonstrably safer than pilots in flying an aircraft.

Of course pilots (of which I am one) will tell you that only they can consistently control an aircraft safely and that they will avoid "stupid" errors that a computer would make when faced with a situation that it hasn't been programmed with.

However, the fact is that pilots make dumb-ass decisions all the time, and fly into the ground on a regular basis. They even shut the wrong engine down on occasions, so that the aircraft crashes when it wouldn't have done had the computer been flying it (Kegworth).

Once the general public can be shown that actually it is safer for pilots not to be involved, that is when the acceptance of pilotless aircraft will come to pass. IMHO. Especially if you tell them that a remote link is always there to cater for "unknown" situations.

We are still talking a couple of decades mind.

Huck

1st Apr 2010, 00:30

However, the fact is that pilots make dumb-ass decisions all the time, and fly into the ground on a regular basis.

Statistics, please. And examples. "All the time"? Really?

413X3

1st Apr 2010, 02:58

almost a hundred thousand flights every day, how many accidents do we need to consider it on a regular basis I wonder?

zerotohero

1st Apr 2010, 05:08

VNAV Tried to kill me last night in the decent, needless to say thats computerised robotics with CMD B selected! the captain at the time was looking out the window at the night sky

I still think I am needed up there! god dam VNAV

Microburst2002

1st Apr 2010, 10:25

The problem of fully automated, unmanned airplanes is the actual probability of a malfunction or number of malfunctions occurring so that the result is a catastrophic accident.

The calculated, estimated or inferred probability is not the actual probability.

The engineers work with complex mathematical reasoning. But no matter how complex and advanced a mathematical calculation is, it only works really well if the data it is based on is the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.
The orders of magnitude they are working with are almost unconceivable. Same as economy, I dare to say. So many experts, nobel prizes, etc... They don't know a shi*t of what is going to happen. They can only explain (more or less, and who knows if they are right...) what happened already.

World's economy has to deal with the "black swan". I don't think it is advisable to make aviation deal with it (even more that right now, I mean).

I am convinced that automation safety is greatly increased if there is a human in the cockpit, or vice versa. And even more if there are two humans, since two humans provide more than twice as much safety.

RAT 5

1st Apr 2010, 11:27

I've Googled it and can not for the life of me find the 'Captain/experienced pilot' factory. I doubled checked in outer Mongolia, deepest darkest Africa and the Amazon rain forest. Sorry guys, but it does not seem to exist. I tried the same for experienced doctors, car mechanics, train drivers, HGV drivers, teachers, CEO's, astronauts and ships captains. Nope, not there. All I could find were training colleges and training courses under the supervision of someone with the experience you seek to gain. Funny that.
I do know of one Chief pilot in a former airline who thought that good captains were born not made. In some respects he had a point - in that it is difficult to make a good teacher from a dummy - you need a certain amount of basic ingrediants; but if the basics are there they can be nurtured into a much better end product. So until the good captain factory is up and running I feel we are stuck with the present system. Perhaps MOL has a share in some cloning laboratory. All he needs is to find his ideal captain and there you'll have it. Unfortunately, his idea of the ideal captain and mind are poles apart. 'Yes man' is not top of my list.

Piltdown Man

1st Apr 2010, 11:34

god dam VNAV

No, no, no! Praise be due to VNAV and those (tits) who program it. It is because of the vagaries of VNAV and the antics of his (or probably her) close relatives, "Auto-throttle fault" & "NAV FAIL" that we'll have a job for the next few years. Even the little nieces and nephews, "NO ALAND" or "GEAR DISAGREE" are likely to be show stoppers (or starters if you are on the ground watching). And the heavyweight distant, relatives of "AC 1/2 BUS FAIL" or "ELEC EMERGENCY" would have to stay at home, permanently. But the trouble is, they can't be relied upon to do that.

PM

Coto

1st Apr 2010, 12:06

You can get a study about single pilot commercial operations:

http://lorkaviation.********.com/2010/03/single-pilot-commercial-operation.html

Pilot Positive

1st Apr 2010, 19:34

...and fly into the ground on a regular basis

Are you refering to regular CFIT incidents? What do you mean by regular? Once every 5 years is regular....

kenhughes

1st Apr 2010, 21:41

For those concerned about where future Captains would come from, or First Officers worried about not being necessary in any such single-pilot, computer-driven flight deck, consider this:

<tonguefirmlyincheek>In order to be effective, any such computer software would have to be programmed with hundreds of thousands of hours worth of pilot experience. It would hold more knowledge of flight operations than any one individual could ever amass.

Therefore, the computer would be the de facto captain and it would be assisted by a human First Officer.

So no worries about from where Captains will gain their experience - there will be no need for Captains.</tonguefirmlyincheek>

I still wouldn't ride in one though. :eek:

Mr Pilot 2007

2nd Apr 2010, 02:29

In the fight to the depths of low cost (ie: low pay) airlines, I would much rather get rid of the arrogant, load mouthed, ceos or management as the OP mentioned.

He must love winding up pilots and his own airlines staff and sit back and watch them sqaubble like children. Im sure he spends many hours reading this website laughing his large head off.

Cactusjack

2nd Apr 2010, 04:24

Oleary's comments are proving he is in need of mental help from a professional.The idea of flying without a F/O,even the idea of charging passengers if they 'take a dump onboard' are ludicrous.It is obvious that this guy is mentally unfit to hold his position of power.
Perhaps he should also suggest removing all his senior management positions and he can fill in for those roles as well ? Lead by example if he is so hell bent on reducing costs and staff.

I also think the fact that this clown is suggesting such ridiculous ideas proves that he has no concept,understanding,care or regard for safety at all.This should certainly be raising an eyebrow within the government and the regulator in his country ?

lowcostdolly

2nd Apr 2010, 09:55

"The point is that the first officer is an independent expert"

Splendid cruiser no disrespect to you personally intended by the comment I'm about to make but as someone who is a PU within an airline who employs a very large amount of low houred pay to fly cadets I disagree. Not all are.

Many times over the few years they have been doing this I have walked into briefings where a young guy sporting 2 gold stripes has turned up beside the Captain looking very unsure of himself. On some occasions I have left the briefing thinking I really hope nothing happens to the Captain today.

I'm sure all of these guys can fly a plane.....they have had to prove it after all. Whether they could do it singlehandedly in a pilot incap situation in bad weather under pressure I for one have doubts.

Expertise comes with experience and these guys do not have it. A lot of our FO's do and the differences in the way they conduct themselves from my perspective are plain to see. I'm sure that is true within the flight deck enviroment as well where some will be developing expertise.

I know our experienced FO's would have the assertiveness to question a Captain if required. I'm not sure the very new cadets would.

IMHO The companies who think an experienced FO is a luxury they can do without will continue to do so until safety is compromised by a crash/near miss caused by pilot error/inexperience.

My lot state "safety is our number one priority.....no compromises". We however actively recruit low houred pay to fly cadets and just when they start developing into FO's with some experience we terminate them :ugh::ugh:

jb5000

2nd Apr 2010, 10:58

lowcostdolly,

Do you have any evidence that the 2 striper would not be able to handle a pilot incapacitation? Do you realise that the cadet scheme has been running for many years, and indeed many EZY captains came through the CTC course (be it Wings or ATP)?

I don't believe you spreading rumours over the internet that they are not up to standard is right, fair, good manners or anything approaching good CRM.

Please take a look at the BA38 thread where the captain was forced out of the company due to the inane gossip of the cabin crew trainers. I hope you don't voice your unjustified concerns to the other CCMs when you're working?

Please think more carefully..........

Spendid Cruiser

2nd Apr 2010, 11:19

lowcostdolly,

No disrespect received and non intended on my part :)

Understood, but the actual reality of inexperienced F/Os is that they have saved the day. As was pointed out at the very beginning of this thread, the case of the Ryanair PiC incapacitation in 2005 at Fiumicino, Italy. The very inexperienced (less than 500h total time) F/O was instrumental in recovering the aircraft. Although it is true that the F/O let the aircraft get into a dangerous situation possibly due to his inexperience (so I take your point), but ultimately the concept of two-crew prevailed.

Is there a possibly that you underestimate said unsure F/Os?

The irony that this was a Rayair flight is the icing on two-crew argument too :}

lowcostdolly

2nd Apr 2010, 12:53

jb5000 I seem to have unintentionally hit a raw nerve and caused offence. I have no evidence that a two striper could not handle a pilot incap. I have no evidence that they can either...thank goodness.

My point was that if somebody comes across as unsure of himself at a briefing it raises doubts. If I loked nervous I wouldn't inspire confidence in my junior crew either.

Just for the record I always keep these doubts to myself as well......in the interests of good CRM. No Captain or indeed CC trainer has ever been aware of how I have felt. As this is an anonymous forum they are not now either.

I didn't say these cadets were not up to standard. I said they were not experts......there is a difference. Spendid cruiser makes a good point....maybe I do underestimate them as I've never seen them put to the test.

However somebody sitting in the RHS for his first few times does not have the experience or developed the expertise of somebody who has been there for years. The same apply's to Captains as well......we all regardless of rank learn all the time on the job. That includes me as well :ok:

I do not believe both as a PU and as SLF that any FO is unecessary whatever his level of experience. I just feel more confident flying with an experienced FO. Whether that view is justified or not is another matter.

NEWYEAR

2nd Apr 2010, 16:12

Lots Capt. do not need a F/O:8

Microburst2002

2nd Apr 2010, 16:16

Many prestigious airlines have a percentage of airplanes flown by more or less low experienced FOs. It is almost inevitably. Even pilots with 3000 in light airplanes lack experience during the 1000 in jets.

The problem is when this percentage is reversed and only a few airplanes are flown by experienced FOs and captains because the experienced FOs are dumped when they run out of money

This can be a problem, don't you think?

fly_antonov

2nd Apr 2010, 18:58

I think that all this experience, no experience discussion is a non-issue and not relevant.

This is why:
By going to reduced crew concepts, you reduce world' s crew needs by almost 50% (almost because you still need remote operators).

Most operations will be done hands-on but remotely, the pilot in the cockpit will become a doll in the cockpit that jumps in when everything goes wrong.

Once aircraft manufacturers prove that aircraft can be flown safely without the doll doing anything useful in millions of hours of operation, the doll will be completely removed.
At that moment, from that remaining 50%, another 90% will have to go.

UAS pilots will learn to fly the machines remotely, using simulators to train and the real machines to validate their skills.
UAS pilots will progress to maturity alot faster because they will monitor many aircraft at the same time and deal with system malfunctions more often. UAS pilots will learn to know their aircraft alot better, alot faster.
UAS pilots will create a direct and large interface between the cockpit and all other operations related to the aircraft. In case of a big problem you can put dozens of brains to work out a solution as opposed to 2 brains switched in survival mode.

Here is an example of a homemade UAV. You will feel like you are at the controls of a real aircraft.

YouTube - AdvancedFPV UAS video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OjRRHr7MUE)

Don' t post a reply to my username unless you first saw that video.

captplaystation

2nd Apr 2010, 19:46

Hey fly -guy put the video where the sun don't shine.

As I said before, try not to confuse reality with virtual reality.

And god forbid the fare paying public lose this ability to differentiate any time soon.

fly_antonov

2nd Apr 2010, 20:28

Go and ask the public, especially the younger generations.

What you see there in that video is raw reality seen through an on-board camera using goggles on the ground.
If that is virtual, then security camera' s aren' t displaying the reality, so they are useless?

Better example: do your EFIS displays display the reality or is it a virtual reality based on reality?

Clandestino

2nd Apr 2010, 20:37

In the end, not surprisingly, it is the reality that counts.

Reality, my fellow. Not virtual reality. Not public opinion.

But then, pilots already know that.

johns7022

2nd Apr 2010, 21:19

It's funny, so many assumed in here that MOL was talking about UAVs and Avionics negating the need for first officers....

He was pretty clear that the first officer being an extension of the captain, who basicaly did everything, was his reason for feeling that FOs were pointless...

The sad silly fact, is that you don't need to have abinitio schools, or hire weak FOs, plenty of experienced pilots out there, plenty in the resume pile that want a shot at flying airliners....

As long as airlines continue to hire based on attitude, ability to conform...a pliable marshmellow that will fly with the captain into a mountain...guys like MOL will continue to ponder why your typical FO is even neccessary.

Pilot Positive

2nd Apr 2010, 22:17

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=26621

Pilot Positive

2nd Apr 2010, 22:20

http://www.rtl.nl/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2007/11_november/02/opmerkelijk/ryanair_baas_oleary_ceo_800.jpg

Pilot Positive

2nd Apr 2010, 22:22

http://www.bitterwallet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/OLeary.jpg

johns7022

4th Apr 2010, 01:35

All joking aside...most airline are working pretty hard at putting themselves out of business.

In reality that weak FO they hired with questionable experience, by attrition not performance becomes a captain some day...with 'Buffalo' results...

No one in here is for hiring better, more qualified FOs?

Pilot Positive

4th Apr 2010, 12:51

Yes Johns 7022 I am.

The issue of PTF will, in the long term, effect overall standards of safety and quite possibly the quality of future commanders...not good in an increasingly populated aircraft environment.

But who is responsible?

- FTOs are (OAA, CTC etc..): For exploting the zero to flight deck phenomena with gloss and slick marketing encouraging a high % of clients to pay lots of money when they have no knowledge of aviation in terms of flying and industry exposure.

- Students are: For believing career fast tracking is what they are owed (thanks OAA) and not wanting to take a traditional route to the flight deck by learning/experiencing the fundamentals of safe flying.

- TRTO's are: For selling, in some instances, sub-standard training.

- Airlines are: For selling RHS positions without, in some cases, prospects of personal development beyond 200 line hours.

- Pilots themselves: For complacency and not taking action by addressing this issue through their reps/union.

TRon

4th Apr 2010, 16:42

I have flown with quite a few 'cadets'.

On the whole I find them professional, capable, pleasant and in most cases extremely good operators.

Could they handle a pilot incap? Well we could all ask ourselves exactly how would we react as in a stress situation. Until it happens, and for most, it never does, there is just as much chance we would freeze as 'them'.

To merely tar them with the brush of 'incapable' is unfair and rather a sweeping statement.

I think it is all too easy to look at a two striper and feel we have to impart our 'superior' standpoint on them when in reality I treat them in exactly the same way as I would an SFO whom I know. Well at least I try. Do I get it right? I don't know but I certainly don't look at them as incapable of doing the job nor do I think they are idiots for taking this deal.

I think if you spoke to most of them you would realise they are largely decent level headed upstanding guys and girls.

I blame easyJet, CTC and Oxford. Not these cadets.

PJ2

4th Apr 2010, 17:16

Pilot Positive;

Good, observant post. Your comments reflect the current state of affairs accurately and point the way to address these problems for those coming into the profession's leadership positions.

To conquer, one must first discourage and intimidate one's 'enemy' and destroy all vestige of self-respect. Here, the 'enemy' was a group of highly-skilled, highly-experienced, well-remunerated specialists.

But, because the marketing of automation was so effective and airline managements both credulous and needing to save costs everywhere, pilots began to be characterized as 'expensive resources' in automated machines that 'flew themselves'.

The impetus behind this very thread is a precise example of such thinking. It is abundantly clear that those who think that pilots are unnecessary and are therefore expensive appendages do not know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, such notions catch on in others who do not comprehend what they are hearing.

When the leaders of the airline industry began, intentionally I think, to desecrate the profession of Airline Pilot beginning in earnest in the late 80's and early 90's, I wondered how such leaders would continue to come to terms with aviation's first principles - that incompetency, lack of address and parsimony kill people and in the long run reduce the credibility of the industry.

We should not make the mistake of believing that Buffalo was, along with at least five other fatals we can point to, just another accident.

The 'expectancy factor' - a sense of demanding or entitlement, is real enough. While it can't be examined here, one wonders if that sense is at least partially a result of young people observing what corporations, and certainly the airlines themselves, have done to their parents?

Young people who are smart and who would otherwise make excellent pilots are choosing other professions; they began doing that more than a dozen years ago and the reasons for this are abundantly clear.

While the "way up" was never perfect, (military, corporate, bush, instructing), it provided sufficient experience for young people who chose aviation as a life. the industry was forced to find a quick solution to rapidly dwindling numbers.

The 'marketing of the MPL' - the 'licensing of inexperience', was initiated and endorsed early on, in my opinion without close examination as to the reasons, by ICAO, IATA and pilot associations alike. That pilot associations permitted this to happen is unacceptable; while excessive wage outliers perhaps had to be addressed, it is a fact today that the industry cannot afford to pay the kind of wages that drive young people away and make those who do come and survive, sacrifice flight safety just to fly commercially.

There is no long-term percentage in hiring inexperience for complex, demanding airline work on high-performance equipment simply because it is cheap. One doesn't become a pilot by spending 200+hrs in a simulator and doing a few dozen flight legs in their first-ever airplane, usually an A320.

I have no doubt that the young people who do choose commercial aviation as a profession are keen, capable and very nice people. In fact my entire note here is not addressed to such earnest and very welcome entrants. It should be obvious to anyone who has followed this discourse for a length of time that it is the process, not the entrants, to which I address these comments.

While it would take a similar study as that which addressed the issues raised by de-regulation, there is enough evidence in experience to think that airline executive leaderships did this intentionally in order to cheapen the profession for 'lo-cost' operations, instigating a race-to-the-bottom.

"Lo-cost" can be done if done intelligently, but it cannot be done on the backs of a skilled and experienced workforce.

Something always gives when such short-sighted priorities are at work. The terrible wages and conditions which now fail to encourage and entice new entrants to the profession need to change.

No airline in trouble ever survived on employee give-backs and no airline went broke solely by paying its employees too much.

The lessson bears repeating: it is not hard to teach someone "How-to" in terms of manipulating the controls to fly an airplane. 9/11 tragically proved that.

It is the sixth-sense that comes through experience in every profession and one can only obtain that by living long enough, aviation's unique challenge to the neophyte, and his or her passengers.

But the airline leaderships do not, or will not, recognize this and instead treat pilots as expensive liabilities instead of assets which can lead to profit. Clearly the industry has gone too far in destroying its 'enemy'.

TRon;
Also interesting comments. I think there is a great deal in what you say that is positive; you point to an important distinction and also a perennial problem of aviation: "When is one's experience not enough?" To emphasize, I do not point fingers at new entrants. If I were in their shoes I would be leaping at the opportunity as I'm sure many here would. The key is in knowing what one doesn't know; to me that gap and the opportunity to narrow the gap is reduced by the present forces at work.

PJ2

767200ER

4th Apr 2010, 19:37

Why do people still refer to ryanair as p2f? you don't pay for a number of hours on the jet. you self sponsor your type rating, and get a job, then you are paid (very well) to fly their aeroplanes. You can't tar it with the same brush as eaglejet et al. This has snowballed into the status quo and every post involving the word "ryanair" has somebody somewhere barking "p2f." Paying for your TR with FR is not a gimmick, its part of their business model, which in turn allows them to keep hiring, which brings opportunity and develops pilots. They're highly unlikely to throw you out after a few hundred hours because someone else has their cheque book ready. This argument is getting old and is flawed. Ryanair is your best shot at a jet job in europe if you are good enough to join and even lucky enough to be called to assesment at the moment.
I'd rather get on with my career and start flying than sit on a forum cursing the airlines and those flying for them.

I digress, as far as this post goes they'll never get rid of the FO on the 737 or any other multi pilot aeroplane. It simply wouldn't be legal.

Microburst2002

5th Apr 2010, 16:34

The problem with ryan is not p2f, but the brookfield fraud. It is not paying to fly, but flying for less than standard (no vacations, etc...). They can still make a more or less proper selection of candidates, if they want, as many among those candidates with the money have talent and can be good pilots.
The ryr problem is a worker rights problem.

What is really wrong is when money bypasses selection so that better, more talented people cannot get a first job, while rich guys, good or bad, manage a job and the jet time that opens the market for them (well, right now it only opens the rent-a-job market, but quite a few managed to get real jobs thanks to buying line training in some misterious airline).

This goes against safety and against quality service, and passengers do not deserve that.

It is not illegal to fly transport airlines with a single pilot crew if the airplane is certified for that purpose, or is it? I wonder if airbus or boeing have studied the matter of having their new or even old models certified for just one man in the deck.

767200ER

5th Apr 2010, 22:46

The problem with ryan is not p2f, but the brookfield fraud. It is not paying to fly, but flying for less than standard (no vacations, etc...).
I'm not picking a fight here, just responding to facts, Standard is relative, ryanair's business model is no perks/extras, that what keeps their costs down and so they can offer low fares, that is true across the board from passengers to crew, i wouldn't frown on a contract just because i have to buy my own uniform and bottled water on the aeropane, they pay you enough to cover those expenses. And at this moment in time i don't know anybody else who will offer someone fresh out of flightschool an RHS in a brand new 737-800.

What is really wrong is when money bypasses selection so that better, more talented people cannot get a first job, while rich guys, good or bad,
This is not the case, the selection criteria is very stringent even before they call you for an interview, out of the thousands that apply, assesment days rarely have more than 10 cadets, some as few as 3. And from those some will still not be good enough to meet their standard, regardless of financial ability. Just because you can pay for the rating doesn't automatically mean you will get in, if you are a bad pilot, rich or poor, you will not get in. Not the other way round, Skill first, money second.

It is not illegal to fly transport airlines with a single pilot crew if the airplane is certified for that purpose, or is it?

It is illegal under normal circumstances i.e barring crew incapacitation to operate any aircraft certified as a multipilot aircraft, with anything less than its stipulated crew compliment.

I wonder if airbus or boeing have studied the matter of having their new or even old models certified for just one man in the deck.
Lets not shake the cage :P

Regards
76

Microburst2002

6th Apr 2010, 16:59

Agree.

I said RYR does make selection.
But brookfield contract is a fraud. They are not contract pilots, they are RYR pilots with less rights than others, such as paid leave, and more.
RYR saves costs with more or less moral and legal methods, but at least is not making a bussiness with the desperated wannabees.
The other ones make money with them. No need for selection since they are not intended to stay in the airline, so who cares.

FCeng84

6th Apr 2010, 18:54

A significant part of certification of a commercial airplane is analysis and testing to show that the impact of failures is acceptable given the probability of those failures. This is true for equipment as well as the crew. There is a sliding scale of impact severity vs. failure probability. At the top of this scale are failures that would result in a catastrophic outcome. For commercial aircraft certification the manufacturer must demonstrate that there are no single failures nor any combination of failures with probability greater than 10^-9 per flight hour that will result in a catastrophic condition.

I don't know what the probablility of the incapacitation of a pilot is, but it is certainly much more probable than 10^-9 per flight hour. The probability of pilot incapacitation coupled with another event requiring pilot action (such as a runway incursion for instance) is likely also to be more probable that 10^-9 per flight hour.

Keep in mind that one benefit of having the two crew located side-by-side with a couple of feet of lateral separation is that a bird through the wind screen or through the relatively soft struction just below the forward windows only takes out one of the at least two flight deck crew.

rottenray

7th Apr 2010, 00:39

Pilot Positive writes:

The issue of PTF will, in the long term, effect overall standards of safety and quite possibly the quality of future commanders...not good in an increasingly populated aircraft environment.... and also not good when said commanders retire from the line and take up jobs at FAA, NTSB, various framers, et al - or become lobbyists.

Just what we need - duffers with "years of experience" who feel that cost is more important than safety.

I don't think that all pilots who come in via a P2F scenario are bad, but logically one can assume that there will be more ineptitude delivered through this door than through the classic "work your way up" path.

PJ2 writes:

No airline in trouble ever survived on employee give-backs and no airline went broke solely by paying its employees too much.Probably not 100% true when stated as an absolute (no airline) but certainly true in general flavor.

What has killed many airlines is that they failed to realize their strengths, and in many cases simply ignored doing what they're best at just to compete on price alone.

Gone are the days when you make a choice based on your perception of how you are treated, what you are fed inflight, your perception of how an airline maintains their fleet...

It's all the same now, basically.

Thank all the college Marketing majors for this one, those idiots waving their customer surveys and market research ephemera around as if they are the Word From Above.

Such is the story of US legacy lines - they have completely missed those of us in the "middle" of the market, willing to pay a reasonable amount more for a trip provided there is a readily distinguishable difference between "el cheapo" and the "classic legacy" price.

WN is one of the last "big" carriers to "keep Kosher" - they're doing now pretty much what they have been doing for many years, and, oddly, they now seem to be much more comfortable (for lack of a better word) than many legacies.

Let me throw something out as food for thought...

Now that we have made the pilot little more than a common employee, why not eliminate him/her?

I don't agree with decimating cabin crew any further than has already happened... But in a decade or two, will we really be losing that much?

Dida

7th Apr 2010, 10:26

I am so glad I'll be retiring soon.

Graybeard

7th Apr 2010, 12:42

Military & Aerospace Electronics Forum and Avionics USA June 3-4, 2010 San Diego Convention Center (http://www.avionics-usa.com/index.html)

The Military & Aerospace Electronics Forum
June 3–4, 2010 • San Diego Convention Center • San Diego, CA

Other Key Speakers:

GE Aviation perspective on NextGen ATM systems
Keith Wichman, Chief Engineer, Flight Management ,GE Aviation
Equipage, certification, and regulation challenges are everywhere as avionics designers begin the transition to the NextGen system. GE Aviation designs aircraft systems from the engine to the cockpit and is involved in solving many of these issues. This presentation will emphasize avionics – for civil air transport as well as unmanned systems – and the associated requirements/path to 4D trajectory-based operations (TBO) and performance-based operations as part of NextGen. TBO will enable unmanned systems integration in the national airspace. The presentation will also cover NextGen operational efficiency, capacity, and environmental improvements for airline operations.

FAA standardization efforts
Steven Van Tress, Chief Aircraft Architect, Federal Aviation Administration, USA
The National Airspace System (NAS) Enterprise Architecture and the Joint Program Development Office (JPDO) Aircraft Working Group (AWG) are developing roadmaps and strategies for implementing NextGen technology across the air space. This talk will focus on aircraft roadmap standardization efforts in the FAA, with special emphasis on avionics planning, UAS integration, and regulatory strategy.
----------

Will UAS adapt to manned airspace, or the other way 'round?

GB

Huck

7th Apr 2010, 13:07

This presentation will emphasize avionics – for civil air transport as well as unmanned systems

Two distinct areas. And they'll stay that way.

UAV's in law enforcement are already happening.....

johns7022

7th Apr 2010, 17:49

Every sector of business is trying to reduce labor costs...

I see as a definate possibility going to a one pilot airliner...with a staff on the ground of UAV type pilots...should one of the airliners lose a pilot or two...., the UAV pilot steps in...

What is interesting about this scenario is the advantages in a completely fly by wire aircraft...

If terrorists were to take over the cockpit...it's possible they could find the controls useless, as a UAV pilot has taken over..

In a fire in the cockpit scenario, given the right technology, it's possible a fire in the cockpit forcing the pilots out, could still be flown by a pilot on the ground...

Another advantage of an on the ground UAV pilot, might be actualy having one more person monitoring, watching, noticing things....while I see it as a more 'he steps in if there is an emergency' ...having peeps on the ground on standby, might be there to talk to pilots up in the air, get sit reps, help fix problems......

parabellum

7th Apr 2010, 21:00

No cost saving there then johns? How much do you think the competent UAV operator on the ground, capable of flying several different types, is going to cost, together with his equipment? Not to mention his replacement if he falls sick or gets overloaded with an emergency or the old chestnut, terrorist activity at the ground station knocking out ground to air communication.

Microburst2002

7th Apr 2010, 21:29

A terrorist attack can have much more devastating effects if the terrorists hacked (rather than hijacked) the whole system in a given airspace. They could make tenths of airplanes to crash. Or cause such a mess that the system would not be able to handle the situation, resulting in possible accidents and a loss of safety.

I have aske a few ground engineers if they think there will be unmanned transport airplanes. All say the same. If that happens I will not fly! It seems they do not trust the computers very much.

ill communication

13th Apr 2010, 11:33

This is a commercial from 1987 (Alaska Airlines). It could be used today for RyanAir, could it not?

YouTube - 1987-Alaska Airlines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYspsgIjb4U)

Pilot Positive

14th Apr 2010, 18:12

It could be used today for RyanAir, could it not?

Its already in the planning stages.... :O

Montgolfier

17th Apr 2010, 17:36

Humans are always standing in the way of progress with their ridiculous, whiny "I don't want to die in a hideous fire ball" attitudes. If pax don't like the idea of flying with one pilot or no pilot, then the solution is obvious: replace them with robots/computers, who won't complain if they're destroyed and who will have plenty of disposable income after replacing humans employees in many sectors of the economy.

The ideal future is machines selling stuff to other machines and providing services for other machines, with money being moved around between machines as efficiently as possible. And Michael O'Leary being the only human being left alive, stalking the Earth as a ruthless cyborg industrialist, his head stuck on a titanium body.

Pilot Positive

17th Apr 2010, 18:08

...and Michael O'Leary being the only human being left alive, stalking the Earth as a ruthless cyborg industrialist, his head stuck on a titanium body.

A radical and far reaching vision for the future: be warned for this is where it will all end if we take the human element out of flying... :ok:

mirabeau

20th Apr 2010, 13:57

I always said that the next generation of aircraft would only have a flight engineer on board to keep things ticking over.
I knew we'd get our own back one day ! Long live the revolution !!:E

Pilot Positive

21st Apr 2010, 12:34

Ah touché Monsieur Mirabeau...A dish worth serving cold, especially by the cold stealy hands of a robot pilot!! And I can still hear someone calling that the fuel pumps are on.... :)

av8tor68

23rd Apr 2010, 05:57

The rumour mill at full gallop:

News from the skunk works - no more flying pilots....

Steve Chealander member of the NTSB 2007-2009 is a retired American Captain. He gave a safety presentation at recurrent training about two years ago. He opened the floor for questions an one guy asked facetiously when are we going to one pilot cockpit. Chealander said that is not funny. He said Fed Ex and UPS are now (two years ago) working on the procedures for a one pilot long haul over water operation. The pilot would be at the controls for take off and landing then go the bunk for cruise while the guy back in Memphis would take over for the cruise. One pilot passenger flights will take a bit longer to get approved. 12 years ago I was Director of Operations for the Alaska Air Guard. I went to a high level conference and this three star gave a presentation that said the exact same thing the major said. The only limitation on fighter aircraft now is the pilot. We have the technology to do everything from the ground and it will be a huge cost savings. No search and rescue, no life support systems, no backlash when we lose a plane.

So this article is right on the money.

I attended a flight safety presentation last evening from a retired AF Major test pilot from Edwards, Bill Koukourikas, now serving there as a civilian. During the course of his presentation, his statement- No future attack military aircraft within the next 15 years will have pilots in the cockpit. The last tactical aircraft with a pilot in the cockpit will be the F-35. He also indicated that within the next 10 or so years all UPS and FedX cargo flights will be with pilot-less aircraft. This prediction coming from their test shop at Edwards.

All drone testing, development etc. is taking place just south of Edwards in the Palmdale area. Sounds like a continuation of the skunk work developments of Lockheed which previously took place in that area. Simply amazing.

Hey, are we a dying breed or what??

Guess you'll have to invite your computer to "have a beer" after the day's flying is complete.

See page 2: http://www.eaa326.org/Newsletters/eaa326-4-2010.pdf