hlminx 301 Posted December 29, 2015 Report Share Posted December 29, 2015 As if the Eurocrats in Brussels hadn't already affected safety by increasing the working hours of commercial pilots to the point where they are dropping off at the controls, they now want to do away with the co-pilot altogether.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3376887/Airliners-ditch-pilots-EU-plan-improve-safety-cut-costs.html The bean-counters are at work again... Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted December 29, 2015 Report Share Posted December 29, 2015 ... uhhhh, do they have a solution for the suicidal pilot problem? I mean other than "just don't do it". Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,314 Posted December 29, 2015 Report Share Posted December 29, 2015 Stupid is as stupid does. Sure pilots make mistakes but without them you are just relying on computers and we all know how well they work. Link to post Share on other sites
Auger 22 Posted December 29, 2015 Report Share Posted December 29, 2015 Looks like the lobbyists from Ryan Air are making the rounds in Brussels. Link to post Share on other sites
Quickmarch 488 Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Hal - open the door, Hal. Hal. Hal? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Gunner 69 Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 The most idiotic part: "to improve safety". 1 Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Yet again, a prime example of beaurocrats meddling in something they know nothing about! F***ing idiots! Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 I can see why the flight engineer was phased out as computers did more of his work, but having a single man in charge of an aircraft with several hundred souls aboard is utter madness. You will just have to hope the pilot doesn't have the fish for his meal, or is not suicidal, or doesn't have a cardiac issue or a stroke, asthma, is pissed (who would report him?) doesn't skip through the check lists (the whole check list system relies on a second human to check with), doesn't accidentally lock himself out of the cockpit after taking a leak, doesn't hear a traffic warning while taking a leak, isn't listening to the radio at a vital time.... The list is endless. I wouldn't want to fly on such an aircraft, especially over the Atlantic or the Pacific. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 Breaking this down to an Oscarism: Aviation Safety is their #1 Concern, because Aviation Profits are their Number #1 Priority. Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 Research project. Interestingly enough I have just read a piece about research (in the railway industry, but still applicable): "If you have a good idea and put it forward to Future Railway/RSSB [or whoever], they could take a share of your profits if it is a success. Your idea could go out to tender, suggesting that people who don't necessarily understand much about it, but offer a lower price to develop it, could get to develop it. Could you therefore lose your intellectual property to someone who probably won't make a success of it, and if they do will you get paid? ... Now consider the advantages of a project that won't work. you can't be liable for damages because nobody will have done it already, and the intellectual property has no valuve as there can be no future profits. However you will bring in a lot of money to support your department........Then there is the clincher; because a successful conclusions is impossible, you can recommend further work year after year" Ian Walmsley, Modern Railways, January 2016 Sounds like this project is exactly the above - no real hope for it but brings in a lot of money 1 Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 The idea of reducing the flight crew to just one is total madness! We all know it CAN be done but there are dozens of reasons, (already listed) why it shouldn't be. Can you imagine how the passengers would react if they found out! This is clearly a step too far and I cannot see many airlines taking such a step. Certainly no long haul operator would be that stupid. If the pilot was to become incapacitated I could imagine the fligh attendants coming out an asking if there was a pilot on board! ...........and 50 odd flight simmers all stick their hands up! Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 It appears to me that Airbus is one up on the EU - they want to reduce the flight deck crew to zero. Now consider the advantages of a project that won't work. you can't be liable for damages because nobody will have done it already, and the intellectual property has no valuve as there can be no future profits. However you will bring in a lot of money to support your department........Then there is the clincher; because a successful conclusions is impossible, you can recommend further work year after year" Ian Walmsley, Modern Railways, January 2016 There is a lot of this kind of thing going on in all kinds of places. One example is in the field of "alternative energy" where trolling for government grant money is the primary activity and often almost literally the only source of revenue and there is no reasonable expectation of either technical nor particularly financial success. At some point, when the cat is out of the bag over the impracticality of what is being pursued and having distributed masses of grant money as bonuses to the company principals, they quietly go bankrupt and slink off into the night. Solyndra is a textbook example. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 You'd have a hard job getting PAX on an aircraft with no pilot! It's bad enough on the Docklands Light Railway that runs trains without drivers! A jet without pilots would never catch on..........certainly not in the very near future. Certainly I wouldn't trust one! Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 It appears to me that Airbus is one up on the EU - they want to reduce the flight deck crew to zero. Now consider the advantages of a project that won't work. you can't be liable for damages because nobody will have done it already, and the intellectual property has no valuve as there can be no future profits. However you will bring in a lot of money to support your department........Then there is the clincher; because a successful conclusions is impossible, you can recommend further work year after year" Ian Walmsley, Modern Railways, January 2016 There is a lot of this kind of thing going on in all kinds of places. One example is in the field of "alternative energy" where trolling for government grant money is the primary activity and often almost literally the only source of revenue and there is no reasonable expectation of either technical nor particularly financial success. At some point, when the cat is out of the bag over the impracticality of what is being pursued and having distributed masses of grant money as bonuses to the company principals, they quietly go bankrupt and slink off into the night. Solyndra is a textbook example. John Very ture John - as it is here Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I work alongside the UK electricity industry and see their real feelings about alternative or renewable energy sources on an almost daily basis. There is a lot of pressure from the regulator to manage the integration of these power sources at the moment, and so the industry is spending a fair bit of cash on the infrastructure involved in having an unreliable source of power generation both in terms of both availability and in terms of regulating the phase of the power source to match the demands of the existing Grid and distribution systems. All the major players see nuclear as the only long term solution to maintaining base load*, investment in re-newables is largely undertaken through political will rather than desire, and will never be able to satisfy base load because of its inability to generate sufficient power and because of its unreliability. I read somewhere that to satisfy the power needs of the UK with wind power generation, the entire land mass would have to be covered by windmills!! *That minimum amount of electricity needed to supply the requirements of the demand at any one time, below which demand will not fall. PS. This topic has slipped into an "off topic" debate. Maybe the Boss should lock it now. I would do it my self but if i did my post would be the last (the post of shame!). Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Allow me to off topic this thing closed by responding to the off topic comment of J.G's I do actually have a scheme to make nuclear power feasible, as the biggest issue seems to be the disposal of the waste. Another is of course the crappy construction and maintenance of reactors, and accidents that result, but perhaps that is partly due to them cutting construction and operation costs in order to be able to leave money to deal with the waste... and still make a profit. What if getting rid of the waste was cheep, and allowed spending more on more robust reactors/operations? It's not rocket science...specifically getting rid of waste should NEVER be put on a rocket. Crackpot ideas to launch that junk would only lead to government sponsored launches of potential dirty bombs when the inevitable accident occurs. My plan will-Permanently dispose of the waste in a manner that it will be impossible to recover in stealth using today's technology (ie. no terrorist group would be able to marshal the massive engineering effort to recover any of it without every satellite/spy plane in the world spotting them). -It is relatively cheep to carry out once the infrastructure is in place...and far cheaper than dropping it into a concreted hole and mounting guards till the half life expires...and beyond. (The Pharaohs tried that technique to protect precious stuff...looters broke into the pyramids in a very short time after they stopped paying for guards.) -The infrastructure would cost about the same, and require similar technology as building a city bridge. (No magic technology is required...existing construction techniques can accomplish this) -There is no need to mount armed guards for 100,000 years, or whatever the half life of the particular particles are...it will be out of sight, out of mind in relatively no time, and permanently unrecoverable in a short time. I hate business, numbers, and managing money gives me stomach aches frankly...I can not run a business, or I'd have my Bat Cave already...and a lot of very fun toys. I confess, am a little bit nutters, but have somewhere above a 140 IQ, and have considered the problem and techniques for a couple years now. I think I have most of the bugs worked out. Just need real world testing to prove the concept...and we don't need to play with nuclear waste to test it...lead will work just fine as a substitute. Looking for a millionaire "business person" ( they don't need to have a construction company, but that would help... ) who would like to become a Billionaire. I am only a Thousandaire aspiring to being a mere Millionaire retired on a very nice sailboat, so am very willing to share liberally with the proceeds...I would be overjoyed to get a 1-2% royalty from the income generated by the company that pulls this off. What would it be worth to get rid of all the solid nuclear waste? A few trillions? Contact me via PM. I will expect a non disclosure agreement until the project commences, and contracts are formalized...and NO details or hints will be provided via PM until a non disclosure is executed. P.S...I'm serious. I invent something new nearly everyday on paper. I hear a problem, and if there is a mechanical solution I can usually figure something out within a few minutes ... I am not so good at inventing electronic/computer stuff...not my forte. ( this one is NOT on paper, btw, it dies with me if it doesn't happen...so don't try to rob my boat ) ...but I don't have a bat cave or resources to make most of it. I am working on a few products that I can afford to produce and have some folks lined up to beta test one of them at this moment, but fear that without a Business Brain, I will only fail as usual despite the good products. I really really need a business person to balance my brain...my brain doesn't have that guy inside, mine is stuffed full of fliberty gibbet Leonardo's. Cheers. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 @ JG - agree almost entirely, except that the economic downside of renewables is not mentioned. @ CC - the waste issue is a tempest in a teapot. There are several feasible, practical, secure alternatives, lacking only the political will to exercise them. Other than that, I will, uncharacteristically, remain silent on this, as painful as that is for me. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 This is way off topic now and probably time to knock this on the head. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts