GPS tells you ground speed, not air speed. Knowing air speed is critical to flying. You can fly 100 mph into a 100 mph headwind, and have 0 ground speed. Going 100mph ground speed with a 100 mph tail wind means you go crashing into the ground.
No, the first thing that happened was the flight computer got confused by differing readings from the speed sensors. It returned the controls to manual and placed the system in alternate law. Then the co-pilots screwed up. The co-pilots not working together to solve the problem caused the crash. Having one of them remote wouldn't have helped the situation.
How about the Gimli Glider? If you run out of fuel, you suddenly have no power. Hard to run on automation without it. There have been a number of successful landings after a plane runs out of fuel, that could never have happened under automation. One of the success factors in USAirways flight 1549 was Capt. Sullenberger turning on the APU as soon as he realized he had no engines. Hard to do remotely when you are already disconnected.
Many airline disasters are caused when sensors go wrong or the output is confusing. Air France 447 was one of those incidents. It would be even more confusing to a remote pilot.
Slashdot Mirror
Phlogiston was in the same state for a while - and stayed that way.
I'll put in a freedom of information act request to get a copy back.
Maybe the Dark Side isn't winning.
if there is a way to build a Beowulf cluster this way.
Battlestar
This from an Anonymous Coward.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of them!
The huge bulk of Theia growing larger in the sky...
With no accents, tildes, or whatever over the letters.
http://xkcd.com/927/
The Pacific ocean is right there. RIGHT THERE.
Oxygen is the 1%
The APU runs on fuel. The Gimli Glider had none, so no APU. USairways 1549 had fuel, but not functional engines, so the APU worked.
They will probably call it Release 2.
I guess that makes it, the Right Stuff...
Air France was replacing the pitot tubes. It just hadn't got to the plane involved yet.
Don't you think if it could run on a battery, it would already run on a battery? Not every plane is ultra-modern.
GPS tells you ground speed, not air speed. Knowing air speed is critical to flying. You can fly 100 mph into a 100 mph headwind, and have 0 ground speed. Going 100mph ground speed with a 100 mph tail wind means you go crashing into the ground.
No, the first thing that happened was the flight computer got confused by differing readings from the speed sensors. It returned the controls to manual and placed the system in alternate law. Then the co-pilots screwed up. The co-pilots not working together to solve the problem caused the crash. Having one of them remote wouldn't have helped the situation.
How about the Gimli Glider? If you run out of fuel, you suddenly have no power. Hard to run on automation without it. There have been a number of successful landings after a plane runs out of fuel, that could never have happened under automation. One of the success factors in USAirways flight 1549 was Capt. Sullenberger turning on the APU as soon as he realized he had no engines. Hard to do remotely when you are already disconnected.
I don't think they landed very well at all.
Many airline disasters are caused when sensors go wrong or the output is confusing. Air France 447 was one of those incidents. It would be even more confusing to a remote pilot.
Do what the first guy said, but for California.
Ok, correction: California has been occupied since 13,000 B.C.
Just give the source code to the ReactOS project. Let them take over so Microsoft can concentrate on Office.