5 ms·
The other pilot is working from home.
by polar8 4y ago
The other pilot is working from home.
- defrost 4y agoFor the sake of the discussion this isn't an entirely ridiculous notion. Here in W.Australia Rio Tinto manage and remote co-pilot otherwise fully automated 100 tonne Haulpak dump trucks (that can easily run over and crush a car or pickup truck) from 1,000 km away. I'm fully in favour of a human pilot and a co-pilot (an advanced trainee even) for short haul flights that don't require shift work for the pilot (eg: long haul Australia -> Europe you'd want a pair of experienced pilots to tag team at least, + copilots and flight engineer) .. but there is an argument to made for emergency remote pilot capability. The argument against that, of course, is terrorists remote flying a hostage filled bomb.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Retric 4y agoYea, I think remote backup drivers for self driving cars is fairly reasonable, but remote pilots just brings to mind thousands of passenger filled bombs.
- oceanplexian 4y agoAt least to start it’s pretty simple. Have a single physical pilot with the ability for a remote pilot to take over in the event of incapacitation, bathroom breaks, etc. The real pilot can always override the remote piloting system through some kind of physical disconnect.
- Retric 4y agoThat’s a different trade off in the case of a deranged pilot or hijackers. Similarly something easy to disconnect is likely to accidentally disconnect, while something difficult to disconnect might not be fast enough. A much larger issue is copilots do a significant amount of work especially in an emergency while also gaining experience in the aircraft. This means a steady stream of highly experienced senior pilots on the exact airframe being flown.
- mym1990 4y agoI would surely hope that to start they would keep 2 pilots in the cockpit and have a remote pilot on standby and record X number of miles without things hitting the fan.
- TomSwirly 4y agoAbsolutely it's an entirely ridiculous notion. > Here in W.Australia Rio Tinto manage and remote co-pilot otherwise fully automated 100 tonne Haulpak dump trucks (that can easily run over and crush a car or pickup truck) from 1,000 km away. Comparing a truck that goes slowly back and forth on a single, unvarying track which never changes to an airplane is not reasonable. And do you know what happens when those trucks, which drive at slow speeds, lose connection? They stop and wait for the connection to re-establish. Does that work for planes? > but there is an argument to made for emergency remote pilot capability. You don't actually make that argument, because there isn't one. Most air emergencies happen in seconds and require situational awareness, and usually some sort of physical input.
- defrost 4y agoYou're forgeting, or perhaps unaware, of the many years of remote UAV operation and autopiloting. Modern aircraft are capable of autonomous flight and large armed drones are able to fly with light supervision switching to tight control as required already (and for some time). Emergencies such as three way redundant altitude control failing, bird strikes, engine failure, et al are best handled by humans at the controls, sure. None the less it's both possible and desirable for emergencies such as the humans at the helm having heart attacks or food poisoning to dealt with by remote supervision. Again, that desirability must be balanced against other security factors.
- nradov 4y agoYou're forgetting, or perhaps unaware, of the extremely high mishap rate with remote UAV operation. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/01/31/deadly-aircraft-accidents-declined-in-2021-air-force-says/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/01/31... Communication lags and sensor fidelity are a huge problem.
- hulitu 4y ago" For the sake of the discussion this isn't an entirely ridiculous notion" They tested it only with remote assasinations.
- theCrowing 4y agoHow? The latency would make him an autopilot operator, but he could never take the yoke...