Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    What were they stroking? I hope they all sat down for a cup of tea and a croissant and stroked the fur of a cat or something like that.
    :lol: :lol:

    Air controller national stroke :/ and Idek why lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    What were they stroking? I hope they all sat down for a cup of tea and a croissant and stroked the fur of a cat or something like that.

    I believe that Air Marshals in America carry a loaded firearm. They were brought onto planes in the USA after 9/11.
    Yeah but America's answer to everything is more guns. They're a bit silly.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    The air inside the cabin is recycled.
    Then you would have to separate the breathable air from the nerve gas and somehow store it or release it into the atmosphere.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Candy55)
    I have this crazy idea that they should give everyone parachutes, so say if the plane lost control and is falling out of the sky or something- everyone can just jump out. And they can wear life jackets to keep them afloat when they land in the water. It's crazy but wouldn't it save lives or work even?
    I don't think there's any doubt that this would save lives in certain situations but I'm not sure it'd save a particular large enough amount to justify the extra expense, weight etc. Plus parachuting isn't exactly safe when you're untrained.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    I'm just pointing out that it's irrational to be afraid while flying.
    It's not. It's a rational fear. It's irrational to be more afraid of flying than other methods of travel, sure, but being afraid of flying isn't that ridiculous. It's not natural to be flying through the air at ~500mph in a metal tube.


    As to the thread, there are a few things, but the weak point currently is the humans in the loop. Human error has basically been the main cause of crashes for the last few years, so let's take the humans out of the loop.

    Pilots are getting fatigued? Definitely. I've got many friends in the business and hearing their tales is scary.
    Well, let's make all airlines unmanned. Pilot them from the ground where someone could take over without fuss.

    But then, who's going to fly in a plane without a pilot?...

    Maintenance is trickier. How do you guarantee that the right checks are being done? How about we mandate a minimum amount of time that aircraft can be on the ground between flights that ensures the engineering crew have had long enough to check things properly?

    But then, budget airlines might not be able to operate, and who doesn't like cheap flights?...

    Security. Starts at the airport. Relies on money. Relies on international cooperation. Hard.

    And even then, that means upping the amount of time you spend in security. Do you want to spend 4hrs waiting in a queue?

    Lots of answers, but customer power will stop all of them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Candy55)
    I have this crazy idea that they should give everyone parachutes, so say if the plane lost control and is falling out of the sky or something- everyone can just jump out. And they can wear life jackets to keep them afloat when they land in the water. It's crazy but wouldn't it save lives or work even?
    Parachuting from the typical cruising altitude of airlines with only a parachute would kill everybody. It's too high and too cold and too lacking in oxygen. These aircraft typically fly 3x higher than aircraft that people parachute from.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    Give some of the control back to humans, perhaps? The Autopilot is vital, but what the plane tells people when something goes wrong should at least be understandable. Airbus seems to be going down the route of designing the captain out of the cockpit.
    Given that over half of crashes are because of the pilot the less involvement they have the better

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given that over half of crashes are because of the pilot the less involvement they have the better

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well with your logic, why don't we get rid of the pilot altogether? You seem to be so sure of yourself there.... In fact, as pilots begin to know more about flight, aircraft behaviour and increased CRM awareness, I beg to argue the complete opposite...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    Well with your logic, why don't we get rid of the pilot altogether? You seem to be so sure of yourself there.... In fact, as pilots begin to know more about flight, aircraft behaviour and increased CRM awareness, I beg to argue the complete opposite...
    Why not?

    All the current tech is pointing towards UASs. Where the military leads, civil aviation not so long after (generally, with a few exceptions) follows.

    It's secure, it's much more controlled, you can easily swap out pilots this fatigue isn't an issue... it seems like a no brainer.

    Except for the general public who'd never want to get on a plane"without a pilot".
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    Well with your logic, why don't we get rid of the pilot altogether? You seem to be so sure of yourself there.... In fact, as pilots begin to know more about flight, aircraft behaviour and increased CRM awareness, I beg to argue the complete opposite...
    Because when a computer fails without a pilot there is nobody? There is also the matter of communications. The pilots are broadly there for two reasons: to communicate and for when something odd happens. I actually have no idea how many documentaries I've seen where the cause of the crash was either "the pilot was a moron" or "the pilot should have just left let the plane fly itself".
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why not?

    All the current tech is pointing towards UASs. Where the military leads, civil aviation not so long after (generally, with a few exceptions) follows.

    It's secure, it's much more controlled, you can easily swap out pilots this fatigue isn't an issue... it seems like a no brainer.

    Except for the general public who'd never want to get on a plane"without a pilot".
    You mean as is already the casein civil aviation? How much more expensive is it vs a pilot in the plane, the risk to your expensive pilot is practically nil in civil aviation, not quite the case with the military.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because when a computer fails without a pilot there is nobody? There is also the matter of communications. The pilots are broadly there for two reasons: to communicate and for when something odd happens. I actually have no idea how many documentaries I've seen where the cause of the crash was either "the pilot was a moron" or "the pilot should have just left let the plane fly itself".
    There have been issues though, where the pilots have made a mistake, but they've done so seemingly because the computer has told them, essentially, to do them. I'm thinking primarily of AF447.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You mean as is already the casein civil aviation? How much more expensive is it vs a pilot in the plane, the risk to your expensive pilot is practically nil in civil aviation, not quite the case with the military.
    Not the same thing. The pilots on board are still traveling everywhere, they're still working the same schedule which, in some cases, is quite debilitating.

    With a remotely piloted vehicle you could just call another guy in to the office from his home. He's far more rested than the guy who's flown 50,000 miles across 6 timezones that week.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    What about this idea?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners.
    It's an armoured booth you step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on your person.
    Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of long and expensive trials.
    You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement: "Attention to all standby passengers, El Al is pleased to announce a seat available on flight 670 to London . Shalom!"
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why not?

    All the current tech is pointing towards UASs. Where the military leads, civil aviation not so long after (generally, with a few exceptions) follows.

    It's secure, it's much more controlled, you can easily swap out pilots this fatigue isn't an issue... it seems like a no brainer.

    Except for the general public who'd never want to get on a plane"without a pilot".
    Oh really? And what exactly proves this? In the last decade we've had 2 incidents that have occurred directly by deliberate pilot intention. What you don't know is that every day, there are dozens of aviation incidents which include occurrences not limited to mechanical failures, but you'd never know because the crew aboard make decisions that result in safe landings every day, even when these incidents do occur. The issue that faces pilots is a harsher work environment where airlines put an ever increasing demand on pilots to work for longer, this is what is endangering passengers. An analogy can be made relating to an issue currently circulating in the media with regards to the NHS which I'm sure you're aware of, it's not much different of that to be honest. Technology is evolving, but unfortunately, not at the fanatical rate you're thinking of. And if you're saying it's "easy to swap out the pilots", then I kindly suggest you research more into the aviation industry and understand these issues at greater depth.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    Oh really? And what exactly proves this? In the last decade we've had 2 incidents that have occurred directly by deliberate pilot intention. What you don't know is that every day, there are dozens of aviation incidents which include occurrences not limited to mechanical failures, but you'd never know because the crew aboard make decisions that result in safe landings every day, even when these incidents do occur. The issue that faces pilots is a harsher work environment where airlines put an ever increasing demand on pilots to work for longer, this is what is endangering passengers. There is an analogy that is currently circulating in the media with regards to the NHS which I'm sure you're aware of, it's not much different of that to be honest. Technology is evolving, but unfortunately, not at the fanatical rate you're thinking of.
    What proves it's secure? I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious given that these are in use over active warzones, controlled from thousands of miles away and don't get broken into...

    More controlled? Well, 99% of any commercial flight is conducted on autopilot anyway, so making it 100% would indicate it was more controlled, purely in a pedantic application of the word.

    And that was exactly my point in post #46. It's the hours that pilots are made to work that contributes to these. So let's give the pilots a more restful way of working. How could that be a bad idea?

    As for advances not being that far ahead, I think you're a bit behind the curve. Unmanned aircraft are most definitely here and ready. If your argument is size you should know that the Global Hawk is about the size of a B737.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm mostly in agreement with Drewski & Jammy Duel here regarding automation - removing the pilot out of the equation would certainly improve safety in most circumstances.
    Playing devil's advocate slightly though - I don't think human pilots are completely redundant yet. There's been examples of pilots pulling off superb displays of airmanship (like 2 I've linked to below) which I highly doubt a computer could do even with future advances in technology.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

    I'm certainly in favour of aircraft being controlled/monitored from the ground rather than by the pilot if cyper security I'd robust enough to stop hacks (unfortunately I don't think it is).

    I do think Drewski hits the nail on the head with the question he posed about whether people would be happy to fly on an "unmanned" aircraft. I doubt at this stage we'd have too many volunteers.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I'm mostly in agreement with Drewski & Jammy Duel here regarding automation - removing the pilot out of the equation would certainly improve safety in most circumstances.
    Playing devil's advocate slightly though - I don't think human pilots are completely redundant yet. There's been examples of pilots pulling off superb displays of airmanship (like 2 I've linked to below) which I highly doubt a computer could do even with future advances in technology.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

    I'm certainly in favour of aircraft being controlled/monitored from the ground rather than by the pilot if cyper security I'd robust enough to stop hacks (unfortunately I don't think it is).

    I do think Drewski hits the nail on the head with the question he posed about whether people would be happy to fly on an "unmanned" aircraft. I doubt at this stage we'd have too many volunteers.
    Remember, just because there's no pilot on board doesn't mean there's no pilot in the loop. I'm not saying hand over to a computer in the entirety, you can still have pilots there ready to takeover and fly the thing by hand. It's just that they're in a more relaxed environment, thus negating the exhaustion argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Less bombs on aircraft

    I've not done the research but I'm pretty sure more bombs makes the aircraft less likely to not explode
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    There is NO situation in which a handgun can be appropriately and safely used in an aircraft by cabin crew.
    What if the cabin crew were terrorists and they were trying to shoot everyone
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 22, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.