Co-pilots are unnecessary

[thewinchester]

...or get Boeing to change the manual :shock:

I did say that, but you'd then be talking even greater jurisdictional issues as you start talking involving pretty much every certifying & air safety authority on the known universe to let that one happen.

Something for those who know more about aviation regulations than myself: Would I be right in suggesting that, if hell froze over tomorrow and the 737-800 AFM was re-written to require only one pilot in the cabin - the aircraft would need to be re-certified by the relevant agencies?

 

[samh004]

In short, O'leary is bonkers - and we need to stop giving him oxygen so his stupid ideas can die a quick death.

It died a quick death as soon as he’d said it. He might’ve got another article written about him and falsely believed that he would get more customers that way, but he wont.

I did say that, but you'd then be talking even greater jurisdictional issues as you start talking involving pretty much every certifying & air safety authority on the known universe to let that one happen.

Surely it’d just be the world, as I doubt Boeing certifies their planes for other planetary bodies.

 

[SimonM]

Someone must have told O'Leary the old joke about modern planes being so sophisticated they only need to be flown by a man and his dog.

The man is there to watch the controls and the dog's there to bite him if he touches them.

- Simon

 

[jb747]

Whilst the man is a cough***t, who simply shoots his mouth off for publicity, the actual situation on aircraft is rapidly devolving to the scenario he's talking about. More and more airlines are putting cadets, or 'pay for hours', etc, people into the right hand seat. Effectively this makes the aircraft single pilot, as all they are doing is occupying the space. FOs don't earn their keep on the bad days, they are very busy on the good ones too. A useless, or inexperienced, FO can well be worse than nothing at all, as you get 'negative' help.

Of course, the stupid fallacy that the 'computer' does all the flying, and the pilots just sit there and look at it is part of this problem. Pilots are very bad at describing what they actually do, and are often just as likely to reinforce this idea.

Something to think about...whilst pilot error accidents are likely the most common cause of accidents (though I suspect many of those are rooted in fatigue), you never hear about the 'saves', when the 'computer' ****s itself. They are normally completed as uneventful flights, with nobody in the cabin any the wiser. And they are extremely common. In an Airbus, the most computerised of all, it takes very little for the aircraft to drop out of normal law, into a mode without autopilot, flight director, and autothrust. I expect the saves outnumber the error events by about 100 to 1, perhaps more.

 

[medhead]

Something to think about...whilst pilot error accidents are likely the most common cause of accidents (though I suspect many of those are rooted in fatigue), you never hear about the 'saves', when the 'computer' ****s itself. They are normally completed as uneventful flights, with nobody in the cabin any the wiser. And they are extremely common. In an Airbus, the most computerised of all, it takes very little for the aircraft to drop out of normal law, into a mode without autopilot, flight director, and autothrust. I expect the saves outnumber the error events by about 100 to 1, perhaps more.

A prime example of why near misses are the most important incidents to report. It is so hard to get people to report near misses. Yet it is those incidents that can be so useful to know about.

 

[jb747]

Yes, but they mostly aren't reportable incidents. They may go in the tech log, and perhaps the most interesting are reportable, but, for instance, an autoland system that drops the bundle at 50', and has the landing continued manually (in the right conditions) is simply a normal operation, albeit with a minor problem.

Of course, if you do nothing....they'll rapidly become reportable, but I doubt you'll be in a position to do so.

 

[medhead]

Yes, but they mostly aren't reportable incidents. They may go in the tech log, and perhaps the most interesting are reportable, but, for instance, an autoland system that drops the bundle at 50', and has the landing continued manually (in the right conditions) is simply a normal operation, albeit with a minor problem.

Of course, if you do nothing....they'll rapidly become reportable, but I doubt you'll be in a position to do so.

Whoops sorry. I didn't mean reportable incident reporting but internal reporting. Getting those near misses into the safety system is important for internal purposes. It is one of my current issues; the need to report the near miss. Especially as I've had a couple of reportables that must have been preceded by a dozen similar near misses. Anyway obviously every industry is different. But some things should be broadly applied.

 

[oz_mark]

'Flight attendant should replace Ryanair boss' | The Daily Telegraph

A PILOT for budget carrier Ryanair has come up with a new money-saving idea after the firm suggested axing co-pilots on flights - replace the airline's boss with a flight attendant.