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 2nd Apr 2010, 18:58
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

Don' t post a reply to my username unless you first saw that video.
fly_antonov is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 19:46
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 20:28
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
fly_antonov is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 20:37
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by John Kenneth Galbraith
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.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 21:19
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
johns7022 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 22:17
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well MOL is exposing our industry to safety issues...

Pilot Positive is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 22:20
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And giving it a bit of a seeing to...

Pilot Positive is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2010, 22:22
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And does he care....? Well, you decide.

Pilot Positive is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2010, 01:35
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
johns7022 is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2010, 12:51
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Pilot Positive is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2010, 16:42
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
TRon is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2010, 17:16
  #292 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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
PJ2 is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2010, 19:37
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
767200ER is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2010, 16:34
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2010, 22:46
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
767200ER is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2010, 16:59
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2010, 18:54
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Certification and Failures

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.
FCeng84 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2010, 00:39
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
rottenray is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2010, 10:26
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am so glad I'll be retiring soon.
Dida is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2010, 12:42
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Future is Coming

Military & Aerospace Electronics Forum and Avionics USA June 3-4, 2010 San Diego Convention Center

The Military & Aerospace Electronics Forum
June 34, 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
Graybeard 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.