3 ms·
Absolutely it's an entirely ridiculous notion. > Here in W.Australia Rio Tinto manage and remote co-pilot otherwise fully automated 100 tonne Haulpak dump truc
by TomSwirly 4y ago
Absolutely 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.