Ryanair's CEO Suggests Eliminating Co-Pilots

postbigbang writes "Ryanair's miser-in-chief Michael O'Leary now suggests eliminating co-pilots as a way to save money. Will airliners be powered by drones, or is it actually viable to have just a single pilot on passenger planes?"

Comments

Waste

[gilesjuk]

I'm all for cutting waste and luxuries we can do without. But when it comes to safety and personnel this is just going too far.

Re:Waste

[spleen_blender]

You sacrifice safety for expediency daily. Everyone does. It isn't black and white but a gradient. I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest the advance of modern technology has made co-pilots possibly unnecessarily redundant.

Re:Waste

[Dexter Herbivore]

Unfortunately, no. The way things are going... you'll be arrested for being a terrorist.

Re:Waste

[TheLink]

How about Ryanair elimate their CEO position? That'll save some money too.

I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest that an AI could replace their CEO.

Re:Waste

[ultranova]

I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest the advance of modern technology has made co-pilots possibly unnecessarily redundant.

Co-pilots are there to handle things in case the pilot gets sick or something. If modern technology has made co-pilots unncesessary, it has made pilots unnecessary, period. If it hasn't made pilots redundant, then it has not made co-pilots redundant, either.

Anyway, I think this is a really, really, really stupid idea. You are saving the $10,000-$100,000/year pilot salary and risking the $50-$150 million plane. Even from a corporate sociopath perspective, this is a really dumb idea.

Re:Waste

[dgatwood]

Until the pilot has a heart attack and dies, which happens periodically. There was one such case just last June on Continental Airlines, and another in February of 2008.... So yeah, if you're willing to increase the number of large airplane crashes by almost one per year, go ahead and cut out the copilots.

The idea of training a flight attendant to perform a landing in the case of a pilot's death means that you would be trusting a minimally trained "pilot" to land a large jet with several hundred people aboard about once per year. That's absolute insanity. That's not cost cutting. It's homicide.

I know I would stop flying IMMEDIATELY on any airline that even CONSIDERED doing that (which means at this point, I'd base jump off the Empire State Building before I'd fly Ryanair, BTW). If your airline's management is stupid enough to consider that, you almost certainly are cutting corners dangerously in other areas, e.g. maintenance. After all, by that same standard, you don't *need* to inspect all those things with such regularity. Most of the time, the parts won't fail even after twice that time....

Now if he had said that they were considering putting in remote control systems so that a backup pilot on the ground could take over electronically in the event that the pilot became incapacitated, that might be palatable. There are ways for technology to reduce the need for a copilot in this day of fly-by-wire aircraft. However, what this guy is suggesting puts him beyond bonkers straight to psychopathic, homicidal maniac. Their CEO shouldn't be leading an airline. He should be locked up in a padded room somewhere so that he can't harm himself or others.

Re:Waste

[orzetto]

You seem to think that flight attendants only serve the purpose of serving orange juice. They are trained for safety and security purposes, including crashes and hijacking. Have you ever noticed that they are never teens who want to make a few bucks, like those who wait tables at the local pub? Yet, if the companies could save money hiring teens, rest assured they would.

Re:Waste

[pjt33]

If Ryanair scraps the flight attendants it loses the ability to try to sell stuff to a captive audience. That's not going to happen.

Re:Waste

[dkleinsc]

On short flights and budget airlines, they hardly serve a purpose.

... unless something goes wrong. For instance, in the US Air LaGuardia Airport->Hudson River flight, the flight attendants were critical to evacuating the passengers safely. The pilots can't take care of the passengers in those sorts of situations, because they're busy trying to save the plane.

Of course, I should point out that the second option is an excellent idea.

Re:Waste

[TubeSteak]

trains... cars... boats...

Q. What do these things have in common?
A. They don't go 500+ mph or fly.

Right now, our ground-side air traffic control systems are still a relic of the 50s.
Until that changes, there is a limit on how much technology you can put in the plane to compensate.

BTW - Those guys at the Indy 500 rely heavily on their track-side spotters to tell them if they can make a move or not.
Not only that, they communicate through the spotters to pass messages to other drivers on the track.
Just because he isn't in the car, doesn't mean he isn't co-piloting.

Re:Waste

[hedwards]

It's Ryanair, a lot of these suggestions are never intended to be put into service or even investigated. It's a way of getting free publicity for always looking for ways of cutting costs. And the press falls for it just about every time.

Re:Waste

[dintech]

They are trained for safety and security purposes, including crashes and hijacking.

Maybe so but on Ryanair, they are mostly trained to sell you stuff.

Re:Waste

[couchslug]

"Frankly, I believe that computers make fewer mistakes than humans, so I would in fact prefer a plane with a single (or no) human pilots."

I've got 26 years as a tactical aircraft avionics tech, engine weenie, and crew chief, from manual control (Bronco) to hydraulically-boosted and electronically supplemented flight controls (Phantom) to excellent fly-by-wire flight controls (F-16 A/B/C/D) and in my experienced opinion...
FUCK THAT NONSENSE! We aren't there yet for passenger applications. UAVs and drones are still early in their development, let alone autonomous systems.

Pilots fuck up, systems fuck up, and one can compensate for the other which is a good reason to have both.

Re:Waste

[jeremyp]

Actually, I don't think that's correct. I think, in an emergency, two pilots probably improve the odds dramatically over one.

If there is an emergency, with two pilots, one can concentrate on keeping the plane in the air while the other deals with how they are going to get themselves safely on the ground.

Re:Waste

[X0563511]

I have a story.

Once upon a time, the Captain had to tinkle. As he shut the cockpit door (which is required to be locked, btw) somehow the door slipped into Uber-Lockdown-Mode (aka guys with forks want in). There is a special trick to opening it like this, and it's only doable from inside. The FO didn't know it.

The moral? He had to chill out with the rest of the passengers and flight crew for the duration while the FO took care of everything.

Had there been only one crew, then it would have been interesting. They have autolanding and autobraking systems. Would you bet your life on them? (nothing being said of how they would be enabled remotely, not currently possible).

Random acts of god/nature/whatever could also seek to relieve your flight of your captain as well. Having the second man not only distributes the workload, but provides some redundancy here. The workload division is a good thing too. Imagine the flight director malfunctioned. There goes your autopilot. Imagine trying to keep the plane pointed forward and on-speed while checking your map chart, dealing with ATC and the radios, and any number of other little things that come up.

Re:Waste

[AK Marc]

I disagree. The copilot is a redundant system for the pilot. Because they are there, they share the load. But the plane could operate 100% should one of them drop dead. That you have two means it makes sense to train them to double-check the other, but even if the majority of their time is spent on that task, it is irrelevant to their purpose. They are a single redundant pilot. If you remove one, then you can remove the other. If not, then you are changing the job of "pilot" from a redundant to nonredundant system. Such changes are clearly steps back in safety. It's not like the navigator (which has redundancy in its current system, computer primary and paper backup) or radio operator (moving duties around but not actually eliminating any redundancy). Increased automation let the pilots take over both primary and secondary control of those systems without impacting their ability to, well, pilot. But there are primary and backups for both. Eliminating the copilot will eliminate the redundancy in the last human operator. Until there's no need for a pilot, there will be the need for a copilot in a redundant system.

Re:Waste

[Volante3192]

Whenever someone mentions how planes can fly themselves these days, I'm reminded Northwest Flight 188: the one that overshot MSP by 150 miles.

Clearly, if planes can fly themselves, it should have landed on its own and not overshot.

Re:Waste

[winwar]

"They are trained for safety and security purposes, including crashes and hijacking."

They exist because of government regulations mandating certain staffing levels and minimal emergency abilities. Sorry, but anyone who wears high heals is not there for safety and security purposes. That apparel in direct opposition to effective safety and security measures is allowed to be worn indicates that their primary purpose lies elsewhere.

Huh?

[ScrewMaster]

There are good reasons for having a co-pilot. What he's really saying is that pilots salaries are (in his opinion) excessive, and he thinks he sees a cheap way out by eliminating the "unnecessary" backup pilot.

Which will work great until that pilot has a coronary at 35,000 feet.

More typical wankery from the master thereof.

[EWAdams]

This jerk gets publicity for his cheap-ass airline by making outrageous threats, most of which are unlawful in any case. Not long ago it was pay toilets in the plane. Then it was standing room only, no seats, with harnesses to hold you in place. It's just a way of getting print space in newspapers that emphasizes how low his fares are.

He is, in short, a troll. Buy some advertising and STFU.

It's actually very smart, if evil.

[EWAdams]

He gets free publicity from the newspapers by announcing these outrageous ideas. None of them ever come to pass, but the column inches he gets could cost millions if he had to pay for them.

Re:It's actually very smart, if evil.

[jimicus]

Contrary to popular believe, any publicity is NOT good publicity. Anyone willing to even propose such a blatant risk to the lives of their customers isn't a company I will ever do business with.

You'd better tell Ryanair that. They are possibly the only company I've ever met which has turned appalling customer service into an art form of which they are proud.

God is my co-pilot

[hex0D]

...and he was declared dead before powered flight even existed.

Re:Some aircraft are designed to have a crew ...

[joe_frisch]

Part of the job of a pilot is to keep an eye on all the automation. The problem is that its very difficult to stay alert for long periods of time waiting for a very rare failure. Two pilots tend to keep each other awake and alert. (Yes I know about the plane the overflew its destination while the 2 pilots were looking at something on a laptop - but that is such a rare event that it made the national news).

Humans and automation tend to fail in very different ways - humans are much better at dealing with unexpected situations, automation is much better at doing repetitive jobs without mistakes.

Having a second pilot probably adds about $1/hour per passenger seat (including all overhead etc) - at the moment I think its still a good deal.

The 3rd dimension

[SmallFurryCreature]

You have heard of 3D? Well, trains and ships and automibiles lack it. They travel on a flat service. Planes don't.

What happens to a train whose engines stops Nothing.

What happens to a ship whose engines stop? Nothing.

What happens to a car whose engines stop? Nothing.

What happens to a plane whose engines stops? It crashes into the ground.

The difference and one that should really be obvious is that with ground based vehicles, if something goes wrong, you got more time and the only safety procedure that must be performed is to bring the vehicle to a stop. Stop an aircraft in a mid air and it won't be there for long.

Even terrorists know this. That is why ships and trains have rarely been hijacked. There is no urgency.

With aircraft you don't time to instruct a crew member on how to turn the ship. You cannot rely on a deathman's handle to make an aircraft safe. Oh, you forgot about that little device didn't you. Wonder how come you forgot to mention the REAL reason brake men could be removed, the simply switch that in the event of a disaster happening to the driver, the train coming to an automatic stop.

Wonder why you left this device out? Because it would ruin your entire idiotic rant of "X works in situation Y, so it will work in situation Z"?

There are a LOT of accidents where the existence of the co-pilot saved the day. many you don't even hear about. like the regular occurance of a pilot getting a heart attack. And oh gosh, that is OFTEN the cause of SMALL aircrafti with SINGLE pilots crashing. That is why if you fly passengers, you need two pilots.

The moment someone can come up with a system that can land a plane safely no matter what, THEN the pilots can be replaced. But no such system exists. No, automated landing systems do not count. They work in perfect conditions, that can cease to be simply because an airport is repairing its systems. Unless airports start to be forced by law to have their automated systems on 24/7, aircraft can't rely on it. Especially not if such systems aren't even allowed to be used in less then ideal circumstances.

But really, comparing a train with a deadman's switch whose breaks are designed to bring the vehicle to a complete stop if anything happens to an aircraft... bit silly don't you think?

Re:Maybe, but not necessarily a bad idea

[vlm]

Out of curiosity: Could some of these tasks and procedures be simplified, perhaps with the help of technology? For instance, exactly what information does the pilot need from/provide to the approach, tower and ground? Couldn't any of this be sent automatically by computers?

Pilots that I've talked to explain you'd pretty much need Nobel prize quality strong AI. Look at that squall line. Is it going to develop or get weaker? And how does that interact with my judgment of the quality of the plane and the quality of my flying? Meanwhile I see a fresh NOTAM shutting down the escape route to my backup airport... or is it? And trust me, even native English speakers misinterpret NOTAMs (with sometimes very bad consequences). Meanwhile fuel filter #5 is clogged but not enough to replace, while transfer pump 2 is running slow but not bad enough to replace, and the peculiar loading of cargo today means strange weight and balance issues ... should I top up tank 3 and risk running out of gas due to transfer failure or top up tank 2 and burn so much extra fuel due to being out of balance that we might run out of gas ... Or could I try a strange reconfiguration never tried before and pump tank 3 into tank 1 and then tank 1 into tank 2 bypassing all the questionable gear? And how does that interact with the development of the squall line storm meaning higher turbulence at least or maybe needing to divert.

Non-pilots think the work required is simple control system theory, just need a fancier autopilot. Can't you replace that whole paragraph about with a simple linear equation or something?