The topic is the same one as given in the OG ( 12th edition ) about the new warning system installed in commercial airliners.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument given above about the installation of a on - board warning system that will bring down mid air collisions is seriously flawed. I think the article makes a number of assumptions which, if wrong, can have disastrous results.
First, the article points out the role of the transponder. It is not clear whether any other mechanism is their to determine the course of the plane if the transponder starts malfunctioning. Thus, I think it is justified to say that in case the plane has a transponder that is not working properly, the whole on- board warning system will fail.
Second, a computerized system, although very efficient, are most times very sophisticated. Thus even if the transponder is working fine, but some other parts of the system are giving wrong readings, which is quite possible at the extreme height and pressure that most planes fly in, the warning system would be as good as non existent.
Third, investigations into plane crashes show an alarming trend that most accidents that could have been avoided are a result of the casual attitude of pilots. Recently, one of the biggest accidents in India was found to be the fault of the pilot who woke up from sleep just minutes before the plane met its unfortunate fate. Thus installing even more computerized parts might jus increase this lack luster attitudes of the pilots.
Fourth, it has not been stated explicitly just how much time would the planes have when the warning system detects the trouble. The high speed most planes travel at, it is of utmost importance that the warning is signaled early enough for pilots to take appropriate action.
Thus, I think the assumptions made above makes the argument seriously weak. If the author had cited some statistics to show the reduction in accidents after the installation of this warning system, the argument would have been stronger. Also, if the author mentioned about the alternative way the pilots could avoid collision in case this system failed, then we could have safely said that mid air collisions would reduce noticeably. But without this information, I do not think it would be wise to come to a conclusion about whether mid air collisions would be reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: i hope i am not violating any copyright issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument given above about the installation of a on - board warning system that will bring down mid air collisions is seriously flawed. I think the article makes a number of assumptions which, if wrong, can have disastrous results.
First, the article points out the role of the transponder. It is not clear whether any other mechanism is their to determine the course of the plane if the transponder starts malfunctioning. Thus, I think it is justified to say that in case the plane has a transponder that is not working properly, the whole on- board warning system will fail.
Second, a computerized system, although very efficient, are most times very sophisticated. Thus even if the transponder is working fine, but some other parts of the system are giving wrong readings, which is quite possible at the extreme height and pressure that most planes fly in, the warning system would be as good as non existent.
Third, investigations into plane crashes show an alarming trend that most accidents that could have been avoided are a result of the casual attitude of pilots. Recently, one of the biggest accidents in India was found to be the fault of the pilot who woke up from sleep just minutes before the plane met its unfortunate fate. Thus installing even more computerized parts might jus increase this lack luster attitudes of the pilots.
Fourth, it has not been stated explicitly just how much time would the planes have when the warning system detects the trouble. The high speed most planes travel at, it is of utmost importance that the warning is signaled early enough for pilots to take appropriate action.
Thus, I think the assumptions made above makes the argument seriously weak. If the author had cited some statistics to show the reduction in accidents after the installation of this warning system, the argument would have been stronger. Also, if the author mentioned about the alternative way the pilots could avoid collision in case this system failed, then we could have safely said that mid air collisions would reduce noticeably. But without this information, I do not think it would be wise to come to a conclusion about whether mid air collisions would be reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: i hope i am not violating any copyright issues.
