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 19th Mar 2010, 18:14
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: surrey,uk
Age: 69
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
well I think its a great idea and, of course, it will require some flight proving to show just how safe a single pilot commercial airplane operation can work !!

First we need a nice shiny 737 from the Ryanair hangar.
Next a suitable pilot !
not one of those wingeing Line Captains though .....
- I know ! .....what about saving a load of dosh and get one of those "pay to fly" ATP cadets ... give him a quick groundschool and a few circuits and I,m sure Mr O,Leary will be eager to fly around Europe for 6 months showing just how safe it is.
(I assume he does passenger in his own aircraft !!)

come on MOL ,show us the way!
rubberduck is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 18:21
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There have been far more accidents due to pilot error than there have been remarkable saves due to the human input.
Really? Care to back that up with some statistics? Of course you can't because the vast majority of events where the pilots intervene become non events because the pilot's intervened and thus are not reported outside of MORs and company reports and are not picked up by the media.

The flightcrew are the last line of defence, the goal keepers in the system. The system stretches all the way back from the regulators to designers to manufacturers to operators to maintainers. None of those elements with all their potential human failings change by deleting the pilot. Yes you remove one potential source of error , but you also remove the last line of defence.

When a football team lets a goal in almost every case it is not just the goalkeeper who has "failed" - it's the same in aviation.
Daysleeper is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 18:22
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dcbus

Glad to hear you are not wound up.
However I am still not convinced in your argument.

Do you not think it is/will be possible for a computer to undertake complex routing and fuel burn calculations dynamically and then request via data link flight plan changes?
This also does not answer the single pilot question, who could also intervene and request them.
Nigd3 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 18:27
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Because computers go wrong regularly

In the past two weeks I've had a hydraulic leak I spotted on a walkaround which didn't show up as low quantities or warnings on the flight deck. A computer would have taken off and then suffered a hydraulics failure - a portentially big issue when airborne. I spotted the problem on the ground before the computers even realised anything was wrong...

In a second incident we had an AHARS failure - essentially one of the the computers that drives the on board speed/pressure altimeter etc displays. What would the computer do when a part of itself fails? I know what we did - no problem.

I say sack O'Leary and replace him with a gerbil as Loughborough University did for the president of their student union some years ago - you'd save millions. Two channels 'yes' and 'no' would allow the gerbil to make all the same deicisions O'Leary does - I mean isn't executive management nothing more than a series of yes/no decisions???

I rest my case.

Desk-pilot
Desk-pilot is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 18:41
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Desk pilot

Im glad you spotted the hydraulic leak.
What makes you sure there would have been a complete hydraulic failure? Possible yes, definate maybe not, impossible to tell without knowing the how "leaky it was. Presumably it wasnt showing up as a warning, as it wasnt yet one. I would guess the computer would fly the aircraft after hydraulics failure in the same way that you would do, using the emergency procedure.

What makes you think that a single failed AHRS (or ADAHRS) in a dual or triple unit system would be a problem to a computer, or its back up?

Do you have any quantitive evidence of how often computers go wrong?
Nigd3 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 18:53
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From looking at the last few posts here.......
Spelling is obviously not a requirement or grammar
A Level of English is needed for a licence,though not for spotters evidently!
45989 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 19:01
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
45989

Don't worry, a computer spell check would have corrected your own post for its grammatical errors.

Now back to the subject........
Nigd3 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 19:11
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pilotless planes

I think all the speculation about "is it technically possible or isn't it", sidelines the major commercial issue. Would your bog standard pax WANT to fly on an aircraft with ONE or NO pilot? Regardless of how well travelled they may be, people still have that "how does it stay up in the air" feeling at the back of their minds. Okay, a train takes the control away from the pax, but I think at 38000 there is a more acute sense that their lives are in someone's else' hands, because coming down to earth makes a bigger bone crunching bump than coming off the railway line. I think few people would be willing to fly without the reassurance of pilots up front, so it would take a braver man than MOL to actually put this into practice.
The argument that pilot error is responsible for XX per cent of accidents is spurious. As with all news reportage, it is only disaster that makes headlines. How many times a day across the world is a potentially nasty situation averted by good pilots?
DIA74 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 19:19
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bugger!
Not a fan of computers, or dumbed down aircraft. Cheers.
In the real world we say
"A" is for Awful
"B" is for Better
45989 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 19:27
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Posts: 1,077
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Don't give him the oxygen of publicity - arseh0les thrive on methane, not oxygen.
ZeBedie is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 19:36
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good laugh at that!
I do hope you are a spotter rather than another pay to fly wannabee?
45989 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 19:38
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The general flying public, unlike what pilots and aviation-guru' s think, is ready to accept a crewless cockpit.
Pilots are the major cause of deadly accidents in aviation.

Pilots solve problems everyday and prevent events from developping into incidents and accidents. With today' s UAV and IT technologies unfortunately, most of these issues can be solved by a computer or a remote pilot assisted by hundreds of camera' s and flight parameters datalinked to him.

Computers can run checklists faster and more reliably than pilots.
They can also be designed to "think" for the right solutions depending on scenario. Computers can land airplanes very accurately and better than CAT 3C standards if they are designed to do it.

There are situations you need pilots for.
Cap. Sullenberger, the BA 777, Ryanair' s birdstrike, etc...
UAV pilots can be trained to deal with such situations.

But I can mention more situations where the pilots were the cause rather than the hero.

There are published articles from major aircraft manufacturers who claim that no-crew cockpits are already possible to achieve, notably Alenia, a major aircraft manufacturer and a 1st tier Airbus and Boeing subcontractor.

Eventually, we will transfer to single pilot on-board, UAV operations. I am convinced that the 2-men cockpit will become a thing of the past starting 2025-2030, with the arrival of the new generation of narrowbodies.

No matter what we stand for, the trend of declining flight deck crew has been pursued over the past 50 years, and will be pursued in the next 50 years. We went from 5 to 2 and I would be very surprised if we don' t at least go from 2 to 1 in the next 50 years.

I agree MOL, those first 5 meters behind the front bulkhead are such a waste of space.


Now allow me to get out of the pilot jobs protection committee' s way.
fly_antonov is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 19:59
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Land of Milk and Honey
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was told once that if you have humans at the start of a process (designing the aeroplane), you need humans at the end of the process (flying them).

Flying is too unpredictable an activity to be able to rely on a computer which can only react to things that it is programmed to react to...and in the place of the headline about the pilot who screws up, it'll be a headline about the computer program not being able to adapt to the situation it needed to adapt to.

I'd never trust an aeroplane without pilots, not only because I'm one, but because the human mind is able to look at a problem in a completely different way to computers...and as many, if not more, crashes that have been caused by pilots, have been avoided by them.

Why people listen to this cretin ranting on about how he can cut costs further by screwing employees over when he's creamed, from my understanding, 500 million euro off the top of the company, is beyond me. Sadly, plenty of people who fly with them would have difficulty reading a Spot the Dog book, so are unlikely to ever be enlightened about the man himself. Sorry, Himself.
170to5 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 20:01
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To anyone who is under the illusion that the public will want a pilot well that will last all of a few seconds until MOL offers free flights. Then stand back and watch how many of the great unwashed are willing to fly off to some back of the ar*e destination that they didn't really want to go to anyway with no one up front. Sure there will be a few that will stand by their principles of so called safety and will fly on other carriers. That will last a few years until all the other airline beancounters follow suit. Then there will be an EASA directive to pull the remaining pilots after studies will have shown that it is safer not to have a human behind the sidestick/column.

The savings would be huge. No more pilots/cc going out of hours. Also with an integrated ATC solution aircraft could be held on stand or remotely with engines off until the software had worked out the best time to launch in order to get favourable FL's/airways, avoid slots, holding etc. Minimum fuel will be taken on every flight since holding will become a thing of the past. After mods to nose gear, driverless tugs could take aircraft out to the holds, similar to the robots that they use at the ports. The technology is largely there.
potkettleblack is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 20:17
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst I sympathise with most of the arguments against flying without pilots, I must point out that was not what O'Leary was contemplating.

The issue was about single pilot operation versus two.

If humans are more reliable than computers why not one pilot?
soddim is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 20:33
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unnecessary first officer

A lot of intresting theories on MOL's latest publicity rant but what nobody has mentioned so far are some cold economic facts,

1 - FR is only 1 airline allbeit far too large for most airline industry peoples liking-Hence imagine going back to Boeing or Airbus and asking for a single operator or unmanned flightdeck Aircraft, Think of the cost to develop this technology,develop it for a freighter,get the FAA & French DGAC to accept it,etc - min25 years

2 - what cost to insure this new type of A/C against hull loss & other pax & CC Liabilites due to " unforseen events"

3 - As I see it right now the only way you can get pax to fly on it with a Hostie as the most senior onboard in charge of all events is to offer free flights

This is just more media fools preaching unthought through MOL propaganda

4 - When the beancounters do the sums on this complete package there is no way it can stack up on paper . ever mind the real world.

Just my tuppence worth in this theoretical financially unviable nightmare as it is proposed. But if anyone else is better informed I challenge them to prove me wrong.

I think Hell will freeze over due to Inverse global warming side effects before this becoms a reality
Flying Mech is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 20:36
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK sometimes
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As i understand it, the tube trains on the Victoria Line, which were introduced in the late 1960s are able to operate fully automatically without drivers. However the unions never allowed this to happen so ever since there has been a driver on the train making sure it does what it's supposed to do.

surely this is a good example to the pilot community to get together, ensure that their pilot's union has teeth, bite and balls and prevents any futher reduction in flight crew, oh and while they're at it terms and conditions..

but, being realistic.....

Remote controlled planes here we come!
RB311 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 20:49
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So a typical day for the 250hr 'Captain' (because they would be Captains straight out of training) would be:

1. Brief the crew (Captain's job)
2. Complete the flight planning (First Officer's job)
3. Check his own calculations (no First Officer)
4. Order the fuel (First Officer's job)
5. Do the pre-flight (maybe Captain's leg)
6. Do the walk-round in the rain (DEFINATELY the First Officer's job)
7. Complete ALL the cockpit checks (partly the Captain's job)
8. Taxy out and do all the R/T (partly First Officer's job)
9. Fly ALL sectors (including reaching the controls he can't reach)
10. Complete PLOG on all legs
11. Handle ALL emergencies single-handed
12. Configure and land the aircraft single-handedly in ALL weather conditions (in spite of the fact he might have only 250hrs)
13. Taxy in and complete ALL checks

After 6 sectors the Captain will drive home and think - S**t I should have taken that job as a 'bean counter' (Chartered Accountant).

My daughter's done that - I always knew she was more clever than me!

KR

FOK

PS: I'm sure MOL is relaxing with a stiff drink, amused at the constenation he has once gain caused by 'off the cuff' remarks! Have one for me - it's all good sport - I'm sure you can't believe how easy it is to wind up these 'steely-eyed knights of the sky' who think so much of themselves, consider themselves so intelligent yet earn only a fraction of your income. It must be satisfying to know that the barrow has well and truly been upset once and for ever!
FlyingOfficerKite is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 20:50
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why is it on PPRuNe that as soon as we get rid of one tw@t (S.F.L.Y. / superman 32 being two recent examples that spring to mind ) up pops another one .

Nigd3 . . well done , you are now THE obligatory tw@t that always exists on this forum.

I don't imagine this post will last long, but enough is enough, taking the place of our missing contributor Rainboe I feel it has to be said.
Now kindly p1ss of back to your home pc flightsim


Actually, no, I think being a Friday night I am being a bit beligerent, so, for that I apologise, you are not being a tw@t, but you are indeed (if you have any experience of two crew ops) being a little unimaginative.
Sometimes , even when the bod next to you is competent AND speaks the same language well, situations can go "up the creek" remarkably quickly.

If your only means of communication (single crew) are with a computer well, I know how frustrating I can find a keyboard sometimes, and I see the problems some guys have already have in communicating with Monsieur Airbus, so I don't think reducing the human/computer ratio in favour of the computer is likely to yield benefits.
And NO pilots, well, feel free to board before me brother, I will wave you Bye Bye from the terminal.
Again, please excuse the abrasive "entree"

Last edited by captplaystation; 19th Mar 2010 at 21:08.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2010, 20:54
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have two comments for this most entertaining post...........

1 pilot flights?

Massive Heart Attack!

No pilot flights?

Auto pilot disengage! Lets see what happened with AF447 before we get rid of the pilots.

Razoray 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.