Ryanair's CEO Suggests Eliminating Co-Pilots 553
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?"
Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which will work great until that pilot has a coronary at 35,000 feet.
Re:Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
How About... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because getting rid of the back-up pilot is such a wonderful idea. How about I eliminate Ryanair as an airline I'll travel on?
More typical wankery from the master thereof. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
God is my co-pilot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest the advance of modern technology has made co-pilots possibly unnecessarily redundant.
I would gladly take the additional risk and save a few bucks.
Flying is much safer than driving even if our monkey brains can't handle the concept of rare medium scale catastrophes vs common small scale ones.
Re:It's actually very smart, if evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Waste (Score:1, Insightful)
Emergency decisions could be controlled from the ground. [...] Hijack this, bitch.
You might want to think that over.
Re:Some aircraft are designed to have a crew ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest that an AI could replace their CEO.
Re:Better Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
You've never seen a passenger throw a hissy fit, have you? Or start screaming? The FAs may be useless until the shit hits the fan, and then there aren't enough of them. They aren't there to serve drinks; they are there to keep the passengers in line.
I have 2 pilots in my family; it's hard, stressful work that takes a toll on their families and their own health.
Eliminating more staff is not the way to go. Do you really want the cheapest, least experienced person at the helm and in the cabin? That's fine when the weather is fine. Try it in a typhoon, when the plane is bucking, the passengers are puking and screaming, and then tell me they can eliminate staff.
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
May depend on what kind of aircraft Ryanair flies, if previous discussions of air safety had any substance to them.
Recall the Air France flight that came down over the Atlantic, and it led to a debate of human vs. computer control in passenger aircraft. Lots of it boiled down to Americans and Europeans beating the our-engineers-are-smarter-than-you drum at each other, despite the fact that both Airbus and Boeing have comparable and very good safety records with their respective approaches. If anything the debate was made more heated because there is so little in it.
Anyhow, this may be a case where it does make a difference. Removing a co-pilot might be a completely different proposition in an Airbus or a Boeing.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno ... never underestimate the power of human stupidity, particularly when there's money involved. I mean, this particular board has tolerated a fruitcake as CEO for some time now.
Boards don't generally view CEOs who generate huge and increasing profits, and vast quantities of free publicity, as fruitcakes.
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
save a few bucks.
You won't be saving anything. The loss of a $40k-75k/year co-pilot will save the company $40k-75k/year. Spread that out over all the passengers/year. You really think Ryan Air will pass those savings on to you in the form of a couple bucks? They won't.
The coin-operated bathroom idea wasn't designed to pass savings on to the customer either.
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
In aircraft that are equipped for CAT III, sure, though many are not. Either way, it still would make me really uncomfortable to know that one flight per year was being flown by someone who could not take over adequately if autoland kicks out for any reason.
Re:Waste (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The 3rd dimension (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe so but on Ryanair, they are mostly trained to sell you stuff.
Re:Waste (Score:4, Insightful)
"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:You don't want the best, you want cheap. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not forget his charging passengers for using the plane's toilets:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7914542.stm [bbc.co.uk]
People! RyanAir's CEO makes these crazy suggestions for the news coverage! He has no intention of going through with any of these mad schemes. He just does it because he believes any publicity is good publicity.
And judging by RyanAir's share price on the London [yahoo.com] and Dublin [yahoo.com] stock exchange since last week when this was first announced, it's a plan that has some merit...
Re:Waste (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
and you're still too poor to afford a private jet.
Congratulations, you're a tool.
Just...wow (Score:2, Insightful)
The CEO of RyanAir ... wants to make sure nobody wants to fly RyanAir.
This is just ludicrous. The biggest plane I have ever seen flown with no co-pilot was a Cessna 402. I was ok with this, because *I* was in the copilot seat and I know how to fly GA sized aircraft.
in other news.. (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news, pilots suggest eliminating stupid CEO's who don't have a basic understanding of the business they're in..
Re:Maybe, but not necessarily a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Put your money where you mouth is, O'Leary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
So how uncomfortable are you with the knowledge that most crashes are due to human error (and large of those - pilot error) / why apparently it doesn't stop you from flying?
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, the guy who landed safely in the Hudson River is a "hero" precisely because he landed safely.
Had he crashed 5 meters short of the Hudson River, taking out a couple of tall buildings on the way, there would have been plenty of "WTF was he thinking" type of questions.
Re:Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also a catchall. Most accidents are not the result of a single "pilot error." They're the result of MANY small errors that build up, the last piece being the final 'pilot error.'
Take Comair 191 for example, the one that took the short runway. You have two tired pilots, a closed taxi lane, outdated airport charts, a lone controller in the tower. So while, in the end, it was a 'pilot error,' there were issues all over, any one of which could have changed the outcome of the flight.
And remember wehre the main RyanAir hub is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pilots don't just fly the plane (Score:3, Insightful)
However, that's not really the point. People seem to think that all a pilot has to do, is fly the airplane (or even easier, make the autopilot fly the airplane) pretty much like a bus driver. If they saw us "work" during cruise flight, they would probably see this suspicion confirmed. However, as a copilot, I quite frequently have to point out minor and sometimes even major mistakes of the captain, that might have resulted in serious incidents. And the same happens in the other direction when I'm flying (both pilots fly just as often). Misunderstood instructions from air traffic control, finger trouble with the autopilot, missing a level off altitude on a procedure, etc... Lots of accidents are blamed on pilot error, imagine what that rate would be if there wasn't a second pilot to catch the first one's mistakes. Times ten would be a conservative estimate.
And then we're just talking about normal operations. We get simulator training every six months, and you should see how high the workload is then. Engine failures, electrical problems, bad weather, lots of checklists to do, judging the situation and the best course of action while one pilot has to manually fly a crippled airplane with a third of the instruments still working... there's absolutely no way you could let just one pilot do this kind of thing safely.
O'Leary is not that stupid. He's just getting free publicity, spreading the word how relentlessly he's cutting costs to keep ticket prices low. And they're not even that low if you miss out on the few promotional tickets that are advertised everywhere. The rest of the passengers often end up spending more than on a real airline.
Re:The 3rd dimension (Score:3, Insightful)
A driver/pilot CAN stop a train, car, boat in near enough any circumstances though.
"Moderating demands" has nothing to do with it. Planes are a lot more complicated than any of those other vehicles. They're complicated enough with 2 trained crew plus a sophisticated computer system.
If anything goes wrong on a train that does not immediately destroy it, there is a good chance that it can be rescued. The same cannot be said of planes. Taking away layers of safety from such a complex device is not smart, regardless of any obtuse precedent.
Re:The 3rd dimension (Score:3, Insightful)
so you have to adjust the schedules for all trains on that line. Fast.
No you just have to leave the red signal behind the train red until the train leaves the section of track it is on.
Re:Waste (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Maybe, but not necessarily a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes and no - in most of those case you are asking a very straight forward question that requires a great deal of inputs and is fairly sensitive to small changes in them. It's not really *difficult* in the sense of "how do I do this" but is hard in the sense of "did I get all the options right?". We aren't talking about flying the plane, just answering questions that someone else is asking based on current sensory inputs.
The bigger issue, IMO this is one of the bigger issues in AI in general, is that you require someone to be an expert in AI *and* and expert in flying those craft. You can take the world foremost experts in both and put them together and have them communicate near perfectly and too many things will be left out. Each doesn't really think in the right way to express what they need to with the other person. The time involved for each task is so great that it is nearly impossible to get that individual. Add in the time and money needed to adequately test it (don't forget liability) and it isn't even going to be a profit maker. It's not like this is something that close is good enough either.
Still, I bet that a competent software engineer, a competent pilot, and a competent ground operator could sit together for a few days and work out something that drastically reduces the information load. I would rather assume a bigger reason this doesn't happen is given how little co-pilots are payed reducing their workload isn't worth much. It's not like spending a half a billion on development (and it would certainly cost that much with all the testing and validation they need) and no telling how much to retrofit current systems with the package so a medium payed person can sit and twiddle their thumbs is going to be a high priority.
Even if the co-pilot sits and does nothing you are going to have to have them for redundancy. Further I would be willing to bet there will be a cost in ability of the co-pilots to move that to an automated system. You may reduce the work load but that isn't always a Good Thing.