FLR-PSA,
Rod Eddington is correct, that’s my point, if such a dreadful event were to happen over London’s crowded sky now, aircraft would stop taking off at that point and all those wishing to land would do so using procedure. I'm not saying that it would be without mishap if the weather were very bad but London would not be covered in flaming wrecks! You are correct in thinking that Man can build such systems i.e. UAV Transports, but the real point is SHOULD HE? Just because we can do it, should we do it? Leaving humans increasingly out of the loop.
The problems I have pointed out are not machine problems, they are very human! and that must include the makers and users of such things who put human error in from the first rivet! I have seen films of Global Hawk spinning in to the ground, Why?, human error? well in a way yes! we made it that crap!
CargoOne Many others here including myself also make the financial point that research and reliability costs £££ before you even build one unit. The first Cat 3 was I believe the BEA Tri-star fleet here in the UK and for that they (UK CAA) had to prove system reliability of ten to the minus nine (one chance in hell of going wrong) for UAVs they'd want even greater success rates as human intervention would be much more remote. And remember when Cat 3 goes wrong, as it is, just press GO/TO now how many times has that happened? The Point here is Auto land is only so great (if a little heavy on the spin) because it is the perfect combination of man and 'Fail Operational' machine and even if an approach looks even just a bit doubtful, you chuck it away.... no accident statistics blaming anything but no pat on the back either as you have just done your job!
Last edited by Duck-U-Suckerz; 21st Jul 2004 at 13:00.