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?