Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Unnecessary first officer...

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Unnecessary first officer...

Old 31st Mar 2010, 21:26
  #261 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
johns7022 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 21:38
  #262 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking Keep it fun!

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
Pilot Positive is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 22:33
  #263 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Rushed Approach is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 00:30
  #264 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Huck is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 02:58
  #265 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
almost a hundred thousand flights every day, how many accidents do we need to consider it on a regular basis I wonder?
413X3 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 05:08
  #266 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Where the company needs me not where I want to be!
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
zerotohero is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 10:25
  #267 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 11:27
  #268 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 11:34
  #269 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.

Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 12:06
  #270 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Portugal
Age: 43
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You can get a study about single pilot commercial operations:

Coto is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 19:34
  #271 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...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....
Pilot Positive is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 21:41
  #272 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Over the hill and far away
Age: 77
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
kenhughes is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 02:29
  #273 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel, Crew Bus, Flight Deck, Hotel
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Mr Pilot 2007 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 04:24
  #274 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Safety Last

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 ?
Cactusjack is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 09:55
  #275 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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
lowcostdolly is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 10:58
  #276 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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..........
jb5000 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 11:19
  #277 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Brickyard
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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
Spendid Cruiser is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 12:53
  #278 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

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.
lowcostdolly is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 16:12
  #279 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: WORLD
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lots Capt. do not need a F/O
NEWYEAR is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 16:16
  #280 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Microburst2002 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.