mriya225
With all due respect to opinion and argument, I have to refer to my previous statement regarding emotional responses from non flight-deck personnel. The general response from non flight-deck ppruner's is to let some other expert sort out the problems, that’s not the pilot's job, i.e.:
We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capability of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.
I'll assume from this cozy statement that:
1) These facilities will be available world wide over land, water and ice?
2) There is zero possibility of anyone other than the appointed authority on the ground that can gain control of the aircraft remotely.
The second point of remote aircraft interference is the most absurd. Consider that:
1) The system on the ground would have the ability to override the pilot completely (think about that).
2) Keeping this electronic leash on the aircraft from being intercepted, corrupted etc. is not 100% guaranteed.
When your aircraft pushes back from the gate, the general public truly does not grasp the behind the scenes planning that has brought the aircraft to that point. Planning, dispatching, ground crews, maintenance, over flights, atc and so on. It always amazes me that the system works at all. But fewer yet understand that when that aircraft gets airborne, you better hope that the commander and crew are fully aware that they are now it. Looking for that big cozy hand in the sky to gently set you back on the ground is not going to happen. Just ask two highly motivated flight attendants that disarmed the shoe bomber.
--------------------------------------