Use of remote pilots in the future?

[Sing For Supper]

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general aviation plane? With SatNav readily available and with cameras on the nose of high end aircraft (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that such equipped GA aircraft with advanced glass panel avionics, fly-by-wire and night vision could not be remotely flown. (actually the fly-by-wire) is not totally necessary is it? The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled model aircraft.

Is there a push for this? I am not suggesting that passenger plane have no pilot, but is it not feasible for the co-pilot to be remote? The economics would be beneficial to the owner and safety would not be compromised if the remote pilot had full forward vision and and the same displays with all available information available via satcom.

[[email protected]]

Sing For Supper > wrote:
>
> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
> aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
> remotely flown.

And the reason for doing this would be?

The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
aircraft is shot down.

The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Sing For Supper writes:

> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
> aviation plane?

Not that I'm aware of. What would be the advantage, at least for hobbyist
pilots, who fly specifically because they want to pilot the airplane
themselves by hand?

> I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.

Sure, but why?

> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
> remotely flown.

Military drones are remotely flown because it prevents pilots from dying, and
for other reasons that are fairly specific to military use.

> Is there a move for this? I am not suggesting that passenger plane have
> no pilot, but is it not feasible for the co-pilot to be remote?

If one pilot is local, they should both be local, and vice versa. I don't
think remote control of airliners is in the cards at any time in the
foreseeable future, for reasons already stated, and also because of security
risks and the desire of passengers to make the pilots share the risk (a pilot
who risks dying if he makes a mistake may be more careful than one who's
sitting at a desk hundreds of miles away).

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Sing For Supper" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is there a move for this? I am not suggesting that passenger plane have
> no pilot, but is it not feasible for the co-pilot to be remote?

Until unmanned airplanes can visually "see, avoid" other planes, and evaluate
other obstacles & hazards at least as well as a human pilot, the technology for
everyday civilian use of unmanned aircraft is not yet "here". The proponents
of general aviation UAV's see a simple solution to all this; simply legislate
other general aviation aircraft out of the sky. On the ground, human piloted
aircraft no longer represent a hazard to UAVs..

Vaughn

[David Dyer-Bennet]

writes:

> Sing For Supper > wrote:
>>
>> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
>> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
>> aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
>> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
>> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
>> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
>> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
>> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
>> remotely flown.
>
> And the reason for doing this would be?
>
> The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
> aircraft is shot down.

And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
(changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
additional crew).

> The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
> is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
> for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
> save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.

Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Sing For Supper > writes:

> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
> aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
> remotely flown.

From what I know of the physical connections from controls in the
cockpit to the control surfaces of what individuals fly as general
aviation aircraft, you can't integrate that kind of technology without
completely replacing the control interconnections. It's direct cables
mostly, from what I've seen.

Which would be hugely expensive, especially since it would probably have
to be certified for use in each specific airplane.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[[email protected]]

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Sing For Supper > wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
>>> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
>>> aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
>>> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
>>> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
>>> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
>>> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
>>> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
>>> remotely flown.
>>
>> And the reason for doing this would be?
>>
>> The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
>> aircraft is shot down.
>
> And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
> stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
> the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
> (changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
> immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
> additional crew).

The military has never cared much how much an aircraft weighes nor how
long the crews stay in the air.

Have you any clue how long SAC B52's used to stay in the air with one
crew?

And UAV's don't do acrobatics; why would they?

>> The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
>> is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
>> for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
>> save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.
>
> Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
> I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
> to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.

Police helicopters do not hover over suspects, they fly slow circles
around a point, just like you can do in a fixed wing.

Police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
airport.

The Maule M-5 used to be very popular among police departments that had
more common sense than money to throw away.

Flight Design has a police model LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
> Sing For Supper > writes:
>
>> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
>> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
>> aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
>> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
>> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
>> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
>> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
>> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
>> remotely flown.
>
> From what I know of the physical connections from controls in the
> cockpit to the control surfaces of what individuals fly as general
> aviation aircraft, you can't integrate that kind of technology without
> completely replacing the control interconnections. It's direct cables
> mostly, from what I've seen.
>
> Which would be hugely expensive, especially since it would probably have
> to be certified for use in each specific airplane.

Off the shelf autopilots interface with the existing controls, but it is as
you say, expensive.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> Sing For Supper > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
>>>> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
>>>> aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
>>>> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
>>>> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
>>>> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
>>>> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
>>>> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
>>>> remotely flown.
>>>
>>> And the reason for doing this would be?
>>>
>>> The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
>>> aircraft is shot down.
>>
>> And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
>> stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
>> the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
>> (changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
>> immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
>> additional crew).
>
> The military has never cared much how much an aircraft weighes nor how
> long the crews stay in the air.

Nonsense. They've pushed limits the civilians won't touch, but they've
been very concerned with fatigue effects on performance.

> Have you any clue how long SAC B52's used to stay in the air with one
> crew?

Very long of course, but the B52 was a bit more set up for it. Also
some of those missions were planned as essentially one-way when it
counted.

> And UAV's don't do acrobatics; why would they?

Avoiding missiles and anti-aircraft fire. And in the future, possibly
using guns on other aircraft and UAVs.

>>> The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
>>> is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
>>> for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
>>> save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.
>>
>> Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
>> I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
>> to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.
>
> Police helicopters do not hover over suspects, they fly slow circles
> around a point, just like you can do in a fixed wing.

Not "over", of course.

> Police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
> airport.

I seem them hovering, or moving very slowly, quite frequently. No idea
what they're actually doing of course.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[[email protected]]

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Sing For Supper > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
>>>>> to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
>>>>> aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
>>>>> nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
>>>>> plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
>>>>> The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
>>>>> model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
>>>>> communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
>>>>> remotely flown.
>>>>
>>>> And the reason for doing this would be?
>>>>
>>>> The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
>>>> aircraft is shot down.
>>>
>>> And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
>>> stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
>>> the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
>>> (changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
>>> immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
>>> additional crew).
>>
>> The military has never cared much how much an aircraft weighes nor how
>> long the crews stay in the air.
>
> Nonsense. They've pushed limits the civilians won't touch, but they've
> been very concerned with fatigue effects on performance.

Yeah, that's why the standard tactic is to issure uppers to the troops.

>> Have you any clue how long SAC B52's used to stay in the air with one
>> crew?
>
> Very long of course, but the B52 was a bit more set up for it. Also
> some of those missions were planned as essentially one-way when it
> counted.

Set up for what; have you ever seen the inside of a B52?

Once in the air it is a giant pain in the ass to do anything other than
sit in your seat and there are no redundant crew members.

>> And UAV's don't do acrobatics; why would they?
>
> Avoiding missiles and anti-aircraft fire. And in the future, possibly
> using guns on other aircraft and UAVs.

Pure fantasy.

>>>> The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
>>>> is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
>>>> for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
>>>> save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.
>>>
>>> Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
>>> I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
>>> to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.
>>
>> Police helicopters do not hover over suspects, they fly slow circles
>> around a point, just like you can do in a fixed wing.
>
> Not "over", of course.

Meaning what, exactly?

>> Police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
>> airport.
>
> I seem them hovering, or moving very slowly, quite frequently. No idea
> what they're actually doing of course.

There is a big differnce between moving at all and hovering in the amount
of maintenance required on a helicopter, which is why it is avoided if
possible.

Howver, police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
airport.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
>>
>>Off the shelf autopilots interface with the existing controls, but it is as
>>you say, expensive.
>
> I've often wondered if someone won't invent an interface between a mode S
> transponder (or a more modern equivalent) and an autopilot to allow ground
> control to take over an airplane in an emergency, e.g. flight crew fell
> asleep or rendered unconscious by depressurization. However, these cases
> are so rare that it might not be worth the effort.

Not worth either the effort or potential liaiblity when it breaks, and
everything breaks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Skywise]

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote in :

> I seem them hovering, or moving very slowly, quite frequently. No idea
> what they're actually doing of course.


Are you aware of the height-velocity curve for helicopters? There
are altitude and speed combinations that you just want to avoid
if at all possible as in case of an engine failure, you don't have
the altitude and/or speed to effect a (relatively) safe landing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height-velocity_diagram

All the police helicopters I've ever seen fly fast low circles
around their point of interest. Probably around 500-1000 feet AGL.

News helis, OTOH, I've seen them hover fixed, but at thousands of
feet. But then, many have gyrostabilized long range telephoto cameras.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Sing For Supper]

I envision this as a subscription service for owners of mid-sized to larger business jets where certified pilots type rated for the aircraft are engaged as co-pilots via remote satellite connection to the aircraft. These remote co-pilots would have access (in real time) to all information that the pilot has (including systems, navcom, onboard conditions (sensors), visual of exterior (cameras) and video communication with the pilot. The use of the forward nose camera and night vision would be essential for the remote pilot. For safety there would be two levels of PIC detection. For cruise, there would be a big green confirm button on the panel, console or yolk in the PIC side that would have to be pressed every five minutes or so to continually verify the physical presence. Verbal and video verification of the PIC would be maintained at short intervals as well. If at any point PIC response was not detected the remote pilot would take over. There would also be a big red kill (switch) button that could be pressed by the PIC at any time to disengage the remote pilot in case of remote hostile takeover of the plane. For critical stages of flight there would be constant monitoring of PIC input and visual/audio monitoring to simulate the remote co-pilot's "immediate proximity level awareness" and involvement in piloting the aircraft. From a technology standpoint, I am aware that this would require software and hardware upgrades of course, but a system like Collins Proline 21 is not so far off from this capability is it? The development of this would have to be a concerted effort between avionics developers such as Rockwell Collins; aircraft companies such as Gulfstream, Dassault, Bombardier; the company to provide the service (and their venture capitalists) and government certification (the REAL obstacle).

The central command center for the remote pilots would be a control room with state of the art simulators (satcom linked to corresponding aircraft) for all major biz. jets (and turbo craft perhaps). It would be 24 hr. staffed with type rated pilots. Under normal conditions these pilots could monitor and handle co-pilot functions of two aircarft at one time. When a situation of need arises with an aircraft a remote pilot commands a single aircraft as needed handing off the other aircraft in normal conditions to another remote pilot. With modern biz jets so laden with sensors, cameras advanced satnav, satcom and fly-by-wire systems, this would be a a very short leap, technologically, for those aircraft. The real leap (particularly in the ultra-conservative aviation industry) is the psychological leap. Getting past the nay-sayers. As for the technology... it's already here. It's just packaging what we have for the biz. jet industry.

The benefits would be two fold.
1. To allow the owner pilot or the single hired pilot the flexibility to fly a two pilot rated aircraft (most biz jets) any time unattended.
2. Reduce the cost of a co-pilot. The economics are simple. With a remote copilot monitoring two aircraft the cost of the pilot is reduced to half (minus subscription costs). Also as a subscription service with hourly rates further cost reduction would found through the elimination of a salaried co-pilot in lieu of an hourly rate remote pilot service. And as more new biz jets enter service the more the costs of the service could be reduced. (I know this will ruffle the feathers of a lot of pilots because I understand that it's a very tough business to be in right now.

[Skywise]

Sing For Supper > wrote in
:

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
> results, please visit
> http://forums.yourdomain.com.au/showthread.php?t=155177
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Question: Would you like to see remote co pilot technology developed?
>
> - Absolutely!
> - Perhaps
> - I don't think so
> - You are out of your mind!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


First of all, this is usenet, and you are obviously accessing it
through a web based proxy. Therefore, those of us with REAL
usenet access and REAL usenet software cannot vote in your poll.
That is, unless we wanted to go to that website and register an
account, which is unlikely to happen for a one time event.

Second, your provided URL is incorrect, so how do you expect
anyone to get to your poll anyway?

But on to the subject of your poll.

My vote? "You are out of your mind!"

The nice thing here is I can explain why I think you are out of
your mind. And just for the record, I'm not a pilot (someday???)
but an avid aviation enthusiast. I do flight sims; not to 'play'
but to learn. My following comments are based on that, some
additional knowledge from my experience with electronics,
experience as an R/C flyer, and a healthy dose of some basic
logic and critical thinking.

First of all, you're adding an additional (and extrordinary)
layer of complication to the process of flying, that also
adds an additional layer (and I say again, extrordinary) risk
in case of failure.

Next, you're suggesting making this additional layer part time.
A copilot is there because the plane is complex enough that
the pilot would soon get overloaded if they were to try to do
EVERYTHING themselves. Yes, they can do it I'm sure, but it's
not easy and by having that second brain IN THE COCKPIT, it
makes it much less likely for something to be missed. By having
your remote copilot working multiple aircraft, and only monitoring
any one aircraft part time, the copilot does not have the
historical situational awareness of what the aircraft and the
pilot have been doing before the 'emergency' or 'need' arose.

Then, you want the pilots attention diverted every five minutes
(or so) to press a big shiny green button in order to let the
part time remote copilot know he's awake. What if he's in the
can/comode/loo? - oh wait, he CAN'T cuz there's no copilot to
take over while he takes care of natures call.

Related to that, the whole system can be overridden by the use
of a big shiny red button. I'm sure anyone wanting to hijack
a plane would love that.

And what about the logistics of the data link? Do you realize how
much bandwidth your talking about? And this is just for ONE plane.
Now multiply that by the thousands or more aircraft that are in
the air at the same time.

Further, on security, adding passcodes or pin numbers to prevent
unauthorized use (remote hijack of the copilot controls, or use
of the big shiny red button to PREVENT copilot control) just
adds additional workload. Not something you want in an emergency
situation.

Then there's the liability issue. Who get's sued when something
goes wrong? And it WILL go wrong.

And perhaps most importantly, why fix what's not broke?

Finally, although I've attempted to pick your idea to death, take
it as constructive criticism. If you can overcome these issues,
and I'm sure the REAL pilots around here can come up with more than
I have, then you might have something. Nothing wrong with trying
to come up with new ideas as that's how progress is made.

But then again, there's a reason for a pilot (and copilots). The
human brain is by far still the most powerful computer that can be
put in control of a flying machine. Putting that computer in a remote
location will only slow down response times and hinder making
rapid decisions in a situation.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Sing For Supper" > wrote in message
...
> - You are out of your mind!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I envision this as a subscription service for owners of mid-sized to
> larger business jets where certified pilots type rated for the aircraft
> are engaged as co-pilots via remote satellite connection to the
> aircraft.

In my humble opinion, You are out of your mind. The costs of that system would
far exceed the expense of a copilot, Unfortunately for them, copilots are cheap
and plentiful..

Vaughn

[george152]

On 1/17/2012 1:35 PM, Skywise wrote:
> Sing For > wrote in
> :
>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
>> results, please visit
>> http://forums.yourdomain.com.au/showthread.php?t=155177
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Question: Would you like to see remote co pilot technology developed?
>>
>> - Absolutely!
>> - Perhaps
>> - I don't think so
>> - You are out of your mind!
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> First of all, this is usenet, and you are obviously accessing it
> through a web based proxy. Therefore, those of us with REAL
> usenet access and REAL usenet software cannot vote in your poll.
> That is, unless we wanted to go to that website and register an
> account, which is unlikely to happen for a one time event.
>
> Second, your provided URL is incorrect, so how do you expect
> anyone to get to your poll anyway?
>
> But on to the subject of your poll.
>
> My vote? "You are out of your mind!"
>
> The nice thing here is I can explain why I think you are out of
> your mind. And just for the record, I'm not a pilot (someday???)
> but an avid aviation enthusiast. I do flight sims; not to 'play'
> but to learn. My following comments are based on that, some
> additional knowledge from my experience with electronics,
> experience as an R/C flyer, and a healthy dose of some basic
> logic and critical thinking.
>
> First of all, you're adding an additional (and extrordinary)
> layer of complication to the process of flying, that also
> adds an additional layer (and I say again, extrordinary) risk
> in case of failure.
>
> Next, you're suggesting making this additional layer part time.
> A copilot is there because the plane is complex enough that
> the pilot would soon get overloaded if they were to try to do
> EVERYTHING themselves. Yes, they can do it I'm sure, but it's
> not easy and by having that second brain IN THE COCKPIT, it
> makes it much less likely for something to be missed. By having
> your remote copilot working multiple aircraft, and only monitoring
> any one aircraft part time, the copilot does not have the
> historical situational awareness of what the aircraft and the
> pilot have been doing before the 'emergency' or 'need' arose.
>
> Then, you want the pilots attention diverted every five minutes
> (or so) to press a big shiny green button in order to let the
> part time remote copilot know he's awake. What if he's in the
> can/comode/loo? - oh wait, he CAN'T cuz there's no copilot to
> take over while he takes care of natures call.
>
> Related to that, the whole system can be overridden by the use
> of a big shiny red button. I'm sure anyone wanting to hijack
> a plane would love that.
>
> And what about the logistics of the data link? Do you realize how
> much bandwidth your talking about? And this is just for ONE plane.
> Now multiply that by the thousands or more aircraft that are in
> the air at the same time.
>
> Further, on security, adding passcodes or pin numbers to prevent
> unauthorized use (remote hijack of the copilot controls, or use
> of the big shiny red button to PREVENT copilot control) just
> adds additional workload. Not something you want in an emergency
> situation.
>
> Then there's the liability issue. Who get's sued when something
> goes wrong? And it WILL go wrong.
>
> And perhaps most importantly, why fix what's not broke?
>
> Finally, although I've attempted to pick your idea to death, take
> it as constructive criticism. If you can overcome these issues,
> and I'm sure the REAL pilots around here can come up with more than
> I have, then you might have something. Nothing wrong with trying
> to come up with new ideas as that's how progress is made.
>
> But then again, there's a reason for a pilot (and copilots). The
> human brain is by far still the most powerful computer that can be
> put in control of a flying machine. Putting that computer in a remote
> location will only slow down response times and hinder making
> rapid decisions in a situation.
>
> Brian
Seconded