Do Commercial Planes Need Co-Pilots?

[Gonzo3333]

Usually there is more than one aircraft in the sky at any given time thus creating traffic. It is just as important to see and take notice of said traffic in the sky as it is on the ground. You don't want to run into or get too close to another plane.

 

[dmr727]

I'm pretty sure Abstract is aware of this, gentlemen.

A lot of people raise eyebrows when pilots mention see-and-avoid because it's a common assumption that ATC is responsible for separating airplanes. While this is true, there are many situations where aircraft separation is not their responsibility, and some situations where ATC is not aware of the presence of an airplane at all.

So because of this, in those cases the onus is on the flight crew to keep a look out to avoid hitting other airplanes.

 

[patrick0brien]

Technically, many of what we call the "Big Carriers" haven't needed pilots for a long time, what with Autopilot and Instrument Landing System (ILS). On a routine flight, the pilot taxis the plane to the runway, listens for the "Clear for takeoff" pushes the throttles forward, then presses a button.

I've flown for 13 years, and I've even heard pilots mention to the cabin that the plane landed itself. On several occasions (that ILS again).

But then, the key word here is "routine".

Without Sulley, there would have been a different story...

 

[dmr727]

^^^ read the article BV posted. If you want an explanation on a line by line basis, I'll be more than happy to oblige, but you are very, very misinformed.

 

[patrick0brien]

^^^ read the article BV posted. If you want an explanation on a line by line basis, I'll be more than happy to oblige, but you are very, very misinformed.

-dmr727

If you are directing that comment to me, I have read the article - last week.

I stand by my "misinformed" statement - even if it is simplified.

Perhaps you should ask more clarifications from me before jumping to the conclusion that I have not received my Certificate.

 

[dmr727]

Perhaps you should ask more clarifications from me before jumping to the conclusion that I have not received my Certificate.

Where did I say that you haven't received your Certificate? I don't care what your background is - this is the comment you made:

Technically, many of what we call the "Big Carriers" haven't needed pilots for a long time, what with Autopilot and Instrument Landing System (ILS). On a routine flight, the pilot taxis the plane to the runway, listens for the "Clear for takeoff" pushes the throttles forward, then presses a button.

And that comment tells me that you're misinformed. In fact, the more 'qualified' you argue you are, the more aghast I'll become by the comment. And don't get me wrong - this isn't an attack on you, but there's a lot of misinformation out there, and IMO professional pilots don't do enough to set things straight. One thing I like about Patrick Smith at Salon is that he takes the time to explain things, he writes well, and as a current line pilot actually knows how things work in an airline cockpit from an operational standpoint.

So fair enough - if you want me to ask you for more clarification, here it is: What exactly do you disagree with about the article? Do you think he's full of crap simply because he has a vested interest in his own job? You admitted that your statement was simplified, so expand on it and be precise. Simplification is exactly why the media is wrong so often. It's usually not intentional, but by not taking the time to give the whole story, they paint the wrong picture.

EDIT: If I don't respond to this thread for awhile, it's because I'm off to taxi to a runway, push the levers forward, and push a button. At that point we might as well sleep. Hopefully my passengers will wake us up as they're exiting the aircraft at the destination.

 

[tyrant]

2 pilots is safer

Planes have two pilots for one reason, safety. They seperate the duties of each and then have a system of checks. If the one person is supposed to do something, the other is to check it. When "pilot" error orrcurs and crahes the plane, its only after BOTH people make multiple mistakes in a row.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Technically, many of what we call the "Big Carriers" haven't needed pilots for a long time, what with Autopilot and Instrument Landing System (ILS).

I don't have any qualifications, I've only been on a working flight deck a couple of times when I was a kid (on trans-Tasman turboprops). So excuse me if this question sounds naive:

You state that, technically, pilots are unnecessary. In the event of, let's say, a diversion and medical emergency due to a serious fight breaking out in the cabin, how exactly would the autopilot handle that situation?

 

[patrick0brien]

Where did I say that you haven't received your Certificate? I don't care what your background is - this is the comment you made:



And that comment tells me that you're misinformed. In fact, the more 'qualified' you argue you are, the more aghast I'll become by the comment. And don't get me wrong - this isn't an attack on you, but there's a lot of misinformation out there, and IMO professional pilots don't do enough to set things straight. One thing I like about Patrick Smith at Salon is that he takes the time to explain things, he writes well, and as a current line pilot actually knows how things work in an airline cockpit from an operational standpoint.

So fair enough - if you want me to ask you for more clarification, here it is: What exactly do you disagree with about the article? Do you think he's full of crap simply because he has a vested interest in his own job?

-dmr727

Interesting. I guess you missed the word "Technically" in my comment. Since you felt my comment in error, my clarification is: "While technically possible, this is not practiced in reality" ergo the word "Technically". But you chose not to be diplomatic and instead based your responses on my words at face value. Which, as we all know, communicating in such a medium as this, with delayed conversing and complete lack of body language, is easily misinterpreted.

And yes, I do interpret your initial response and your second as a bit of an attack. Accusing me of being 'misinformed' is at the heart of that interpretation: that is not a diplomatic word. How could I have read that as anything other than - light as it was - an attack?

As for the clarification you seek: I do disagree with some of Patrick Smith's assertations. Some being "they do not land by themselves; they do not fly by themselves". These are incorrect statements which one is directly clarified in the following sentence regarding the rarity of using ILS. Planes do fly themselves - e.g. Autopilot.

Again, it is a difference between technical, and practical. However, I can't think of a single big carrier that doesn't spend the entire cruise-phase with autopilot on.

So while I disagree with some of the nitpicky thing in his article, I do not disagree with the point. The spirit of his article is dead-on in my view. We need actual pilots in the cockpit for the very reasons tyrant mentions: safety, and flight management of the unexpected.

I suppose I was too subtle in my original comment: Let me clarify: While "Technically" it is possible that planes could lose one pilot because of the automation readily available, I do not believe we should.

BTW - Michael O'Leary is far from the first to mention removing flight crew. I remember much discussion as long as a decade ago about replacing the entire flight crew with a minimally-trained "technician". Here is an article asking similar questions 4 years ago. I can't seem to find anything on the older stuff right now.

 

[dmr727]

I guess you missed the word "Technically" in my comment.

No I didn't - but I didn't realize that use of the word 'technically' absolved you of discussing today's aircraft, today's airport and airspace infrastructure, and today's operational reality. If you want to talk about the future and where it should logically go with the technology that's currently available, that's fine (and I'd agree with you, I bet). But I figured we were talking about what we can do right now, with the equipment we have today. And even technically, in today's aircraft, an autopilot can't get an airplane from one airport to another without significant levels of pilot intervention. Perhaps where we differ is in the word 'significant', but I'll get to that later.

I'm also sorry that you took my post strongly - I thought 'misinformed' would actually be better than the word 'wrong', because it's possible that someone can come to this conclusion by being fed some very realistic but incomplete information from myriad of sources - be it the news media, a show on Discovery, Popular Science - you name it. Ask around - I tend to not take myself too seriously, and I certainly don't mean to offend. If I responded too harshly, I apologize.

These are incorrect statements which one is directly clarified in the following sentence regarding the rarity of using ILS. Planes do fly themselves - e.g. Autopilot.

To be fair, he didn't say an ILS is a rarity - rather an ILS to minimums low enough to warrant an autoland is. An ILS and autoland are two different things. To me (and I'm guessing to him too), it's purely semantics about who or what is doing the flying. An autopilot requires a great deal of human interaction to get it to do what you want it to do. As he said, more interaction with the airplane is required to do an autoland than to simply land the plane manually. You seem to think that if the humans aren't physically in direct command of the control surfaces of the aircraft, the plane is flying itself. I'll agree that in the literal sense the autopilot is the one flying, but for the purposes of a discussion about whether the pilots need to be there at all, I don't see it as relevant, since all the autopilot is doing is responding from commands sent to the Flight Director by the pilots to begin with.

So coming full circle, how much interaction do you think pilots have with the airplane (on a routine flight, outside of talking to ATC) once the plane has taken off? This was the crux of my 'misinformed' comment. Based on your initial post, it's probably more than you realize (you're right that it's far less in cruise, although not non-existent). Or not, and we simply disagree on what's 'significant'.

However, I can't think of a single big carrier that doesn't spend the entire cruise-phase with autopilot on.

You can't think of one because from a regulatory standpoint, the autopilot must be engaged anytime the aircraft is being operated in RVSM airspace (in the States, from FL290-FL410). For airline pilots, cruise tends to fall in that range.

Look man, the last thing I want to do is sit in a hotel room and get into a pissing match with someone. I'm sorry if I came across too strong - but do me a favor and re-read your initial post from the perspective of someone that feeds himself and his family via a job that you think is completely irrelevant (I'm not an airline pilot, but from an operational standpoint, I'm essentially the same). I can look at myself in the mirror every morning because of what I put into this job, and to have someone take my professional existence and reduce it to taxiing a plane to a runway, pushing the levers forward, and pressing a button - it's prone to evoke a response that's perhaps not as measured as it should be.

You state that, technically, pilots are unnecessary. In the event of, let's say, a diversion and medical emergency due to a serious fight breaking out in the cabin, how exactly would the autopilot handle that situation?

In today's aircraft, it wouldn't. You can't just stick an airport into the computer and tell the autopilot to land there. It needs to be told all the little details involved in getting the airplane safely on the ground - fixes to fly to, headings, altitudes, vertical descent rates, airspeeds, the approach to fly, etc. The medical emergency actually uncomplicates things because it gives the pilots freedom to select all these attributes without ATC interference - but regardless the decisions have to be made by the pilots, and the autopilot has to be told how to execute them. Looking back to the two Northwest pilots that overflew Minneapolis in their Airbus - once the autopilot stopped receiving instructions from the crew, it simply flew along at its last commanded heading and altitude, and would have happily done so until the airplane ran out of fuel and crashed.

 

[yg17]

In today's aircraft, it wouldn't. You can't just stick an airport into the computer and tell the autopilot to land there. It needs to be told all the little details involved in getting the airplane safely on the ground - fixes to fly to, headings, altitudes, vertical descent rates, airspeeds, the approach to fly, etc. The medical emergency actually uncomplicates things because it gives the pilots freedom to select all these attributes without ATC interference - but regardless the decisions have to be made by the pilots, and the autopilot has to be told how to execute them. Looking back to the two Northwest pilots that overflew Minneapolis in their Airbus - once the autopilot stopped receiving instructions from the crew, it simply flew along at its last commanded heading and altitude, and would have happily done so until the airplane ran out of fuel and crashed.

Just out of curiosity, is all that stuff that can be programmed from the ground? Not to replace pilots, I'm not setting foot on a plane that doesn't have 2 pilots, but in the event of, say a hijacking? Could all that be programmed into the autopilot computer from ATC, and then have the autopilot set to ignore all inputs from the cockpit?

 

[r.j.s]

Just out of curiosity, is all that stuff that can be programmed from the ground? Not to replace pilots, I'm not setting foot on a plane that doesn't have 2 pilots, but in the event of, say a hijacking? Could all that be programmed into the autopilot computer from ATC, and then have the autopilot set to ignore all inputs from the cockpit?

I hope not. I imagine that if it could - it would be able to be hacked - and that is a scary thought.

 

[dmr727]

Just out of curiosity, is all that stuff that can be programmed from the ground? Not to replace pilots, I'm not setting foot on a plane that doesn't have 2 pilots, but in the event of, say a hijacking? Could all that be programmed into the autopilot computer from ATC, and then have the autopilot set to ignore all inputs from the cockpit?

In today's ATC environment, which is very dynamic, it can't all be pre-programmed before the flight begins. Routings, altitudes, and airspeeds vary from trip to trip depending on weather and other traffic. But there's no reason it can't be programmed on the fly (or flown directly) from a source on the ground. The military essentially already does this with its drones, and they've been experimenting with pilotless F16s (in the sense that the pilots are on the ground, and not in the aircraft) and so on as well.

The problem is, how do you secure the data transfer from the ground to the airplane? One good hack and you have some zit faced idiot crashing planes from his mother's basement. The military is willing to risk it because at worst you lose an aircraft. It's more troublesome when you have people onboard. But you're right, I think what you're talking about is the next big technological step in aviation.

 

[jknight8907]

Just out of curiosity, is all that stuff that can be programmed from the ground? Not to replace pilots, I'm not setting foot on a plane that doesn't have 2 pilots, but in the event of, say a hijacking? Could all that be programmed into the autopilot computer from ATC, and then have the autopilot set to ignore all inputs from the cockpit?

No, that is not a current capability.

 

[patrick0brien]

a job that you think is completely irrelevant

-dmr727

I have utterly failed in making my point clear.

Let's leave it at this.

 

[dmr727]

I have utterly failed in making my point clear.

Or perhaps I've simply failed in understanding it. I have a feeling that one day you and I could have a couple of laughs about this thread over a beer.

 

[renewed]

-dmr727

I have utterly failed in making my point clear.

Let's leave it at this.

Or perhaps I've simply failed in understanding it. I have a feeling that one day you and I could have a couple of laughs about this thread over a beer.

I think y'all should be copilots on a plane that doesn't need them.

 

[dmr727]

I think y'all should be copilots on a plane that doesn't need them.

Dammit, Sooner!

 

[yg17]

I hope not. I imagine that if it could - it would be able to be hacked - and that is a scary thought.

In today's ATC environment, which is very dynamic, it can't all be pre-programmed before the flight begins. Routings, altitudes, and airspeeds vary from trip to trip depending on weather and other traffic. But there's no reason it can't be programmed on the fly (or flown directly) from a source on the ground. The military essentially already does this with its drones, and they've been experimenting with pilotless F16s (in the sense that the pilots are on the ground, and not in the aircraft) and so on as well.

The problem is, how do you secure the data transfer from the ground to the airplane? One good hack and you have some zit faced idiot crashing planes from his mother's basement. The military is willing to risk it because at worst you lose an aircraft. It's more troublesome when you have people onboard. But you're right, I think what you're talking about is the next big technological step in aviation.

Ah yes, good point, I forgot about the hacking aspect of it.

So if you watch Mythbusters, you might have seen when they confirmed the myth that in the event both pilots are incapacitated, someone with absolutely no flight training at all could be talked into landing a plane by ATC, but then they went on to say that not only has it never happened, but if both pilots did become incapacitated, auto pilot could land the plane. However, I'm guessing in reality, someone (likely the flight attendant) would have to set the auto pilot, and that's something that anyone could be walked through.

 

[dmr727]

However, I'm guessing in reality, someone (likely the flight attendant) would have to set the auto pilot, and that's something that anyone could be walked through.

I think this is true. The mechanics of landing an airplane aren't difficult - even without autoland. It's definitely something that can be talked through. It's like anything else, whether it's surgery, writing a computer program, or what have you - the actual act isn't the hard part - it's the things you need to know to execute that act, outside the vacuum of a specific instance, where the money is made.

 

[carlgo]

Well, there are always the movie where a heroic passenger lands a plane after the pilots have been incapacitated. The tower gives commands and the new pilot has beads of sweat coming down his forehead.

The movie is very, very long...

Oh, and I forgot, who is going to kill all the snakes? You can't fly and wrestle snakes at the same time.

 

[yg17]

Well, there are always the movie where a heroic passenger lands a plane after the pilots have been incapacitated. The tower gives commands and the new pilot has beads of sweat coming down his forehead.

The movie is very, very long...

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

 

[aethelbert]

Oh, and I forgot, who is going to kill all the snakes? You can't fly and wrestle snakes at the same time.

Otto can fly. Pilots kill the snakes. Problem solved.

 

[renewed]

Otto can fly. Pilots kill the snakes. Problem solved.

Otto, well I hate to tell you this but... well.. he's dead man, he's dead. There was this whole pins and needles art project controversy and he was trying to defuse it and I mean it got ugly. Real ugly.

 

[dmr727]

No need for two pilots when you've got this guy: