Apologies for the short notice.
Topic:
"The computerized onboard warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of
midair plane collisions. One plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder-a radio set that
signals a plane's course-in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action."
Essay:
The author of the article claims that the installation of a computerized on-board warning system on commercial airliners that allows two planes with the system installed to communicate with each other will help significantly minimize the chance of mid-air collisions. While the author's argument seems persuasive a first, further investigation and thought indicates that he makes some flawed assumptions and leaps of judgment that weaken his argument as opposed to strengthening it.
Firstly, the author indicates that commercial airliners will have the system installed. He makes the assumption that commercial airliners are the significant cause of mid-air collisions while infact it might be that private or military aircraft are at fault with no involvement from commercial airliners. Also it is possible that the mid-air collisions could be between commercial and non-commercial planes. Hence, installing these systems in only commercial airlines will not reduce the problem of mid-air collisions. If the author had provided more information on the parties involved in collisions as well as provided evidence that even non-commercial airplanes were installing these systems, his argument would have been more persuasive.
Secondly, the installation of the warning systems might be financially viable for commercial airliners owing to larger budgets. However it may not be as cost effective for smaller private owners. Also the military may choose not to install such systems for security concerns such as not giving away they location to enemy aircraft which may have a similar systems installed. This further reduces the usefulness of the system. Had the author provided more information on the cost-effectiveness of the system and more information on how security concerns would have been addressed, we would have been more inclined to accept the author's stance.
Finally the author provides no details on the kinds of warnings given by the system. For example, if the system does not warn the pilot well in advance of the chance of a collision, the pilot may not have enough time to make corrections and avoid an accident. Also there is no information on the effectiveness of the system in various weather conditions. If most mid-air collisions occur in bad weather and the system is not effective in such conditions or the transponders on the aircraft are unable to communicate with each other, the system would not work. It could potentially lead to even more collisions if the pilots solely depended on this system to detect nearby aircraft. More details on the resiiency and reliability of the warning system such as its performance in bad weather and the rates of collision avoidance in aircraft facing bad weather would have helped the author's argument.
In conclusion, the author does not provide significant evidence for us to accept his claims and his arguments as they stand are not well reasoned out. It may well be that commercial airliners are subsidizing or providing or free the on-board computerized warning system to private airlines which would make it financially viable for them to use. Or the system may have some extremely secure encryption in place to make it's use by military aircraft reasonable. Further, before installing the system, significant reasearch may have been conducted on how well the system worked in various weather scenarios as well as that it warned pilots well in advance of possible collisions. However, lacking such evidence and information, it would be difficult for us to accept the author's argument.
Topic:
"The computerized onboard warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of
midair plane collisions. One plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder-a radio set that
signals a plane's course-in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action."
Essay:
The author of the article claims that the installation of a computerized on-board warning system on commercial airliners that allows two planes with the system installed to communicate with each other will help significantly minimize the chance of mid-air collisions. While the author's argument seems persuasive a first, further investigation and thought indicates that he makes some flawed assumptions and leaps of judgment that weaken his argument as opposed to strengthening it.
Firstly, the author indicates that commercial airliners will have the system installed. He makes the assumption that commercial airliners are the significant cause of mid-air collisions while infact it might be that private or military aircraft are at fault with no involvement from commercial airliners. Also it is possible that the mid-air collisions could be between commercial and non-commercial planes. Hence, installing these systems in only commercial airlines will not reduce the problem of mid-air collisions. If the author had provided more information on the parties involved in collisions as well as provided evidence that even non-commercial airplanes were installing these systems, his argument would have been more persuasive.
Secondly, the installation of the warning systems might be financially viable for commercial airliners owing to larger budgets. However it may not be as cost effective for smaller private owners. Also the military may choose not to install such systems for security concerns such as not giving away they location to enemy aircraft which may have a similar systems installed. This further reduces the usefulness of the system. Had the author provided more information on the cost-effectiveness of the system and more information on how security concerns would have been addressed, we would have been more inclined to accept the author's stance.
Finally the author provides no details on the kinds of warnings given by the system. For example, if the system does not warn the pilot well in advance of the chance of a collision, the pilot may not have enough time to make corrections and avoid an accident. Also there is no information on the effectiveness of the system in various weather conditions. If most mid-air collisions occur in bad weather and the system is not effective in such conditions or the transponders on the aircraft are unable to communicate with each other, the system would not work. It could potentially lead to even more collisions if the pilots solely depended on this system to detect nearby aircraft. More details on the resiiency and reliability of the warning system such as its performance in bad weather and the rates of collision avoidance in aircraft facing bad weather would have helped the author's argument.
In conclusion, the author does not provide significant evidence for us to accept his claims and his arguments as they stand are not well reasoned out. It may well be that commercial airliners are subsidizing or providing or free the on-board computerized warning system to private airlines which would make it financially viable for them to use. Or the system may have some extremely secure encryption in place to make it's use by military aircraft reasonable. Further, before installing the system, significant reasearch may have been conducted on how well the system worked in various weather scenarios as well as that it warned pilots well in advance of possible collisions. However, lacking such evidence and information, it would be difficult for us to accept the author's argument.
