says...


Your system of having remote pilots *increases* the potential for errors.
How many screens will the pilot have to watch to replace the simple task
of scanning (this isn't as simple as it sounds, either)? And, you want to
have one guy managing more than one flight?


Well, yeah!
Even thought of a name for it. I'll call it ATC. A savvy mix of human and
computer technology, watching over departure, en-route and arrival of several
planes at once. Science fiction, I know, but it could work, if you give it a
chance!


At the very least, this is not likely to improve the loss rate, which would
more than offset the cost of the pilot's salary. Add to that the expense of
maintaining the requisite systems, and it's easy to see that the cost of
operation would be higher, not lower than today. How much will an A&P with a
computer science degree cost?


I don't think the impetus of the thread was really to reduce costs - or at
least not exclusively. The airlines have found many ways to reduce pilot
costs!! I think the thread (which I did not initiate, and which I did not
even agree with) was as much about reducing human error as anything else.


Perhaps you are not involved in aviation, or not aware of how the
system is organized.

The FAA is satisfied that I am involved in aviation by virtue of a
certificate and current medical. And, I pass my checkrides without
problems, so I suppose I understand, at least to some degree, how "the
system is organized". ;-)



Sorry, I didn't mean anything insulting by that. I noticed the thread was
cross-posted, so I thought you might be responding from a non-aviation
viewpoint, that's all.



In short, *I* won't be flying on any airliner where the pilot is not on
board.



Neither will I! I've said from the get-go that I didnt think it was a good
idea. I just don't share your view about the technical complexity of it. I
think about 85% of it is in place already, and the remainder is not much
more complicated. Some challenges - sure. Nothing space-age though.

G Faris