Thank you Sy…what an informational post that was. It answered many questions and brought up other questions that need to be asked and answered.

Real-time flight data is more than over due. The Titanic clause is something that I had never heard about and it is something that I am going to spend some time finding out more about. I also had not thought of remote control capabilities for commercial airlines…another good idea Sy.

Thanks for all of the info.

Sy,

I cannot let this go without comment. I have never read a more cynically self serving or self promoting piece in my life. I notice you don’t mention that you are the holder of the patent for the Safelander system, do you. You are correct in saying that there is no technical reason why the digital flight recorder data isn’t sent in real-time to the ground fr one aircraft, but there are many for not doing it on an industry  scale.

You are dishonest in comparing the commercial aviation system to an Apollo mission. Yes the ground staff monitored the Apollo flights, and after Apollo 13 reported the problem they were able to confirm effects and assist with problem solving, but how many staff did it take to do that real time analysis for just one flight? 4 tiers of at least 4-6 people per tier, per shift? Now multiply that by the thousands of flights daily in scheduled airline operations and staff costs alone become prohibitive. Sure the public may demand it, but will they be willing to pay the huge extra cost in air fares to finance it? From the coverage i saw of the price rises due to oil costs I doubt it.

You claim that telemetry of real time data could have prevented 9/11. To that I say cow cookies. I went and had a look at your, yes your, safelander.com website. In it you say:

"The remote pilot, who can concurrently control a plurality of operational aircraft, communicates with Air Traffic Control and operates in a secure, synthetic vision, high fidelity, virtual reality cockpit simulator located in a ground-based facility. The patent saves cost and weight by providing a method for safely piloting traditionally dual piloted operational aircraft with just a single onboard pilot."

Let’s just examine this claim shall we? From where does the high fidelity synthetic vision come? It’s relatively simple on a flight simulator, but you are talking about a real time video feed from each aircraft ! On top of DFD telemetry, the bandwidth required would be enourmous. And you claim that a single pilot could operate safely what is traditionally a dual piloted aircraft! But the reason they are dual piloted is because they became so complex with so many different information sources that one pilot could not safely deal with it, and a challenge response system of checklists was instigated to ensure as far as practcable no vital steps were missed. Of course in emergencies disractions do occur, and despite the best of intentions steps sometimes still get missed. And then  you claim not only can one operator in a remote facility do it more safely than two pilots in the aircraft, but they can do so for multiple aircraft. So what, does your pilot have 2, 3 or 4 aircrafts views projected simultaneously on the high fidelity synthetic vision screens of his simulated cockpit? What if he accidentally sends control inputs to the wrong aircraft? ( I’ve seen it happen with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).)

You say in the article above that:

"We presently have remote pilot vehicles flying now utilizing secure high bandwidth communication networks (we use them for our submarines, AWACS planes, etc.) and there isn’t a logical reason for not making that technology available for cargo and carrier aircraft.  The cost of 9/11 alone is ten times the cost of putting in a safe system and yet nothing has intentionally been done. "

There are any number of logical reasons for not adopting this technology in cargo and carrier aircraft, it is already available to them. First spectrum. There are relatively few military aircraft utilising this high bandwidth communication, and electromagnetic spectrum is already a scarce resource. To find enough bandwidth to do so on the global aviation scale will mean finding room in the spectrum for it.. Can you convince the world population to give up cel phones or wireless Internet to make room? Second, application. Military UAVs, which is essentialy what you are proposing passenger aircraft to become, cannot just fly any where. They are restricted as to the airspace in which they can operate, because they are unable to detect and avoid other aircraft (and TCAS doesn’t fully solve that issue), and there needs to be a back up plan in case of loss of telemetry and command links. In many cases the contingency is to spiral down to crash because the vehicle is expendable, but people in aircraft are not! And instead of making emotionally charged statement about relative costs, how about some figures to prove it.

I’m also curious to know under what conditions your remote control pilots would assume command of an aircraft, and how would it be activated. Flights may deviate from their approved route for many reasons. Radio or navigation system failures, ill passenger on board, disruptive passenger on board, weather conditions, minor aircraft malfunction. How would you differentiate these from a case of disabled crew, or hijack? And how would your control of the flight be initiated?

There is no way on God’s green earth that airlines will agree to install a system where control can be taken from the pilots without them making a conscious decision to allow it, and even if they did no pilot would fly them. That is because if there was no communication a pilot may  not be able to discen the difference between a malfunction. and a remotely issued control instruction, or even interference on the control channel. That being the case, if a crew is rapidly disabled, then your system may not be able to prevent anything as the crew may not have the time or ability to engage it.

There is another, more compelling reason for not having your system able to be engaged without the conscious selection of the crew. If, as you claim, one control position can control multiple aircraft, then you have potential for an event that would make 9/11 look like a minor car park bingle. If a terrorist group were to access this technology, then one team could take control of aircraft without ever having to pass through airport security, or even venture near the airport. One team could achieve as much, if not more, than 5 teams achieved on 9/11, and 5 teams could wreak carnage on a continental scale. Consider what would happen if New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chigago were attacked simultaneously.

I am an Australian, an Air Traffic Controller, and a military officer with extensive experience of integrating UAV’s into airspace used by air transport operations, with experience at both International Airports and military bases.

I am offended at the cynical way you are pushing your own financial barrow and using the tragedy of AF 447 to do so. I thought that Air France were incredibly brave to openly announce the airspeed indicator issue, knowing that it would attract the mindless drones of the media. And may I add that data came from the limited telemetry that is commercially viable at the moment. However it doesn’t gel with accounts from a following aircraft of a bright light and rapid descent. This to me is far more indicative of an explosion,, whether caused by lightning or a bomb, and the widespread wreckage would seem to support that scenario as well.

It’s only natural for people to look to blame somebody for a tragedy like this. However sometimes there is no blame. Everything has risks, even simply crossing the road or even eating peanuts. Sometimes the odds catch up with you.