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 23rd Mar 2010, 01:43
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 19
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hm...

After thinking about this for some time, here's my 0.02... The fully automated (0-person crew) airplane gives me the jitters just thinking about it. Yes, there's unmanned trains, there's unmanned submarines - but both of these have the privilege of being able to safely stop when an unpredictable error occurs - quite easily too - stop propulsion, come to a safe stop. The UAV that the armies are also quite a different thing - for one they are a lot slower and a lot more forgiving and also if they're lost the damage is purely financial. Also - if you wish to have them remote controlled from on-the-ground controllers this means each and every airport would need to have a local "remote controlling station" (long distance remote controlling would be a no-go due to high latency issues), which I doubt would ever finance itself. Let's add to that that you would need to have these remote controllers multi-rated for all the different aircraft types (again /$ issue). Also - since these remote controllers would probably be monitoring several aircrafts at once - their response time to an evolving situation - recognizing, taking control would introduce too much delay to make it practically feasible. Fully automated (not remote controlled) aircraft would need quite a new level of high-availability implemented as compared to the one already implemented. Where you have dual systems now I'd highly suspect you'd have to go triple systems for the most vital elements (the process of arbitration needs to end in the decision of which system is delivering the correct data in case of failure in one of the instruments - where you had the human now to pick the correct data by using his intelligence you'd rely on a pure automaton to pick the right one now - since truly intelligent AI is still in the domain of sci-fi). For true triple system HA you'd need newly developped systems again (just sticking 3 identical systems in will make them both prone to the same system error in case of a bug (which will occur given enough time)) - so again a financial issue. Without babbling too much - I really see no way that it would be financially viable to go this way. One pilot cockpits ... hm ... so how is this supposed to work with new pilots? Just stick him in with some computer support and pray he manages to do everything correctly, does not suffer any health issue and can hold his bladder for the duration of the flight? If he's incapacitated in any way we're back to the problems from the previous paragraphs. Again not a very viable option. And let us not forget that by eliminating the pilots from the cockpit we wouldn't be eliminating the human factor from flying - we would still have humans planning, building and maintaining the aircraft, so the human error possibility would still stay a part of the equation. Where I do see the potential for more technology is more proactive monitoring on the part of the computer - and after being involved in planning, implementing and maintaining computer systems for well over a decade it is still my opinion that computers in aviation should remain advisors and monitors, but never controllers that can't be overridden - of course still being careful not to saturate the crew with information overload. Many human error related accidents could have been avoided with advanced monitoring systems. Let's say Lexington - a simple "takeoff runway" data stream from the tower would've enabled the FMC to warn of incorrect heading while takeoff power was applied, just to name one (pick a random accident/incident and think how an advanced monitoring system could have prevented the situation and I'm sure you'll find that many of them could have been prevented). Sorry for being long... D.
damirc is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 07:06
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: earth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about reducing the cost by flying with out cabin crew as well. It will be self service for the pax, or having venting machines.

sikalia is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 09:05
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about reducing the cost by flying with out cabin crew as well. It will be self service for the pax, or having venting machines.

I hope O'leary was not listening when you said that.
silverstrata is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 09:56
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 1,231
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And who ensures they sit down and fasten their seatbelts etc etc?

I'm generally with damirc on this issue, especially as the timescale over which any significant changes to the cockpit could be implemented is so long as to be rendered superfluous by other issues.
Mikehotel152 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 09:58
  #165 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mike.

Who cares? They get bounced around a little, they'll soon learn to strap in!
 
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 17:19
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi guys! I have just signed up to the forums and am currently finishing my ATPLs. I am completely shocked by utterly stupid O'leary is. I hope he and the rest of you realise that it would be illegal to fly the 737 single crew on commercial operations. It is a simple fact of Aviation Law that most (not all) commercial aircraft must have a crew of at least 2. As far as I can remember this is outlined in Jar Ops, but not sure.
flyboy146 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 17:28
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope he and the rest of you realise that it would be illegal to fly the 737 single crew on commercial operations. It is a simple fact of Aviation Law that most (not all) commercial aircraft must have a crew of at least 2.
Aviation law can be changed with the stroke of a pen, so I wouldn't count too much on that.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 17:46
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not so I'm afraid. If for example O'Leary really wanted to do something about this he would first have to inform the CAA and try to convince them that it was a viable and safe thing to do. If the CAA did agree which I highly doubt they will (as single crew IFR is highly demanding and not as safe as with 2) they would then would have to notify EASA and ICAO of the difference neither of whom would comply.

Not only this, but how would a pilot flying a 737 or any other large jet for that matter realise that he had made a mistake. There would be no cross-checks, no safety barriers. People would say "Oh well the autopilot does all the flying", that maybe but who programmes the Autopilot on the MCP? The pilot of course.

I really really believe that this is media conjencture. The whole point of having multi-crew is for safety and to eliminate the exact problems highlighted before.
flyboy146 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 18:38
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flyboy146
Welcome to the forums.
Have a good read as to what is being suggested and researched by some major players out there. This is not just MOL spouting off cost saving measures as he usually does.
This has the potential of being fact in the relatively short future, maybe 20 years off, maybe 30, who knows.
Nigd3 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 19:26
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
damirc:
i am with you
i was also giving it a thought and came to similar conclusions: SAFE full automation is theoretically possible when we have control over EVERYTHING - so it may take some time to achieve.
PNF redundancy - interesting approach from MOL to get some free PR as sincere cost cutter. Definitely he has succeeded and got his message delivered!
WojtekSz is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 19:47
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Parabellum, it seems my posting which you consider an exaggeration has provoked you to a negative response. Parabellum is a noun which was coined by German arms maker Duetsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken, derived from the Latin si vis pacem paru bellum, meaning if you wish for peace prepare for war.
So given your apparent passion for latin and all things of war, I would have thought that you of all would have appreciated that major advances in aviation were largely brought about as a result of major conflicts, ie wars. On the subject of bows and arrows, more important than the arrow was the use of stirrups by cavalry troops, which in the abscence of such devices were unsteady on their mounts and inaccurate on their targets. Whilst I will readily admit that I am not trying to steal Nostradamus` thunder, I cannot agree with you that my reference to robot warships is a long shot or a long bow in the discussions on this thread.
In discussing the future of aviation are we to restrict our vision to the visible horizon, should we not try and see what lies beyond it.
Chronus is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 20:09
  #172 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tkazaz - When the density of submarine traffic approaches the density of air traffic I will agree that you have a point. Cheers.
parabellum is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 21:01
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Loss of a UAV is purely economical. The army doesn't mourn loss of hardware.
Loss of a 738 is purely economical. MOL doesn't mourn loss of hardware. And he has insurance.
chksix is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 22:05
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah but what happens when the A/C starts breaking at 20,000' and the Captain falls out .......... bugger don't remind me
windscreen is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 23:48
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What an idiot!
I remember him offering "free" beds and blowjobs in business class on his future transatlantic airline during a press conference back in 2008...
German translator was blushing...

Here is the link for the curious:
Ryanair's CEO says new airline will give free oral sex | Gadling.com
767Capt is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2010, 01:30
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: world
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst UAVs, no crew, submarines et al, are all riveting stuff in another context, would someone like to RTFQ, as I was taught in pilot training, and tell me how different/ more difficult it is to fly an SJ 30 [my post 162] than, say, a modified A320 single pilot? The SJ is already approved by the FAA. This is happening here and now, it's not some future fantasy. Isn't that the point!
Discuss.

Last edited by xrba; 24th Mar 2010 at 02:19.
xrba is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2010, 06:30
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What a load of nonsense here. Automation is there to assist the crew, not take it's place. I have flown with engineers, it is not pretty. Yet they believe they can design a system to cover all contingencies from the ground? No freakin' way.

The current fascination with UAVs for combat will run it's course. The reality is, as we are seeing in Afganistan, is that you need someone on site to actually pull the trigger to prevent friendly fire or collateral damage to civillians. The new ROEs by McCrystal have made that clear. Most errant strikes have been missiles fired from Indian Springs, NV(or some other remote site).

CEOs (and engineers) dislike pilots because we dare to question their authority. The CEO we question because we are the first to see when management decisions go wrong. The engineers because we see the flaws that occur in any system and we press for corrections. Everyone would be happier if we pilots we silenced. Thank goodness for the sake of safety that we are still here.
cactusbusdrvr is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2010, 06:43
  #178 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 84
Posts: 3,270
Received 37 Likes on 18 Posts
Okay, somebody must have that picture of the pilot sitting in an open cockpit - while his passengers are in the cabin behind.

What were they thinking? Had they got no imaginations?

I suppose it was because he wore a uniform hat that they had confidence in his ability to stay the right way up in cloud.


Of course, all Rapide captains had to sit in the hot-seat for the first flight.

dh rapide - Google Search
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2010, 07:48
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Richmond Tasmania
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, look!..as a sim instructor I flew the 737 and the A320 many times, single pilot IFR after the crew had departed for the boozer.
Piece of cake to carry out a single pilot EFATO, S/E ILS, rapid descent etc, you name it.
Just one big computer game...easy as pie. Airplanes only need one pilot who knows what he's doing!...

or a sim instructor!!
obie2 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2010, 08:17
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 1,231
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Many LTCs would tend to agree...
Mikehotel152 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.