Why is aircraft marshalling still necessary?
I've seen in a documentary that many airports have people guiding the airplanes to the parking spots (marshals). I've also noticed that the key point is to reach a precise spot on which the nose landing gear has to be placed. Couldn't that be solved with a camera installed on the landing gear itself so the pilots can check whether they go along the lines and finally reach the precise spot?
airport taxiing
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
add a comment |
I've seen in a documentary that many airports have people guiding the airplanes to the parking spots (marshals). I've also noticed that the key point is to reach a precise spot on which the nose landing gear has to be placed. Couldn't that be solved with a camera installed on the landing gear itself so the pilots can check whether they go along the lines and finally reach the precise spot?
airport taxiing
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
7
@RussellMcMahon - that is completelly and utterly false. As someone whose job is software development, that's like you said walking carefully outperforms flying in a 747. The only reason is cost.
– Davor
Dec 22 '18 at 10:31
1
Think of it this way, (and I'm going to completely fabricate these numbers): Any extra weight requires extra fuel to be carried. Say 10 kg of weight might require 1 kg extra fuel. Across a fleet of aircraft, even a very small increase in weight can have a profound impact on fuel costs. Said another way, a human marshaller is likely more cost effective than installing such a system. At least for now.
– user16289
Dec 22 '18 at 14:31
6
camera installed on the landing gear? What about wingtips? and the top of the tail. or 180 degrees to the right, where some jackass is about to cut me off. or there's some lady chasing her kid, or baggage flying around; debris on the runway, etc. (locusts!) Cat and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria!
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:49
1
@user16289 They do have taxi cameras on large aircraft already because its impractical to have a human marshaller accompany the airplane to the runway.
– user71659
Dec 22 '18 at 21:31
1
@Davor You misunderstood what I said / I could have been clearer :-). I meant that the cost of implementing protection measures that meet all eventualities in eg the random-threat rich environment of taxiing amongst people, aircraft, unexpected material and protrusions, un or partially authorised people, ... - is so far much more $ costly than using x% of a person to do the same thing. A well enough programmed, sensor rich system can do the job better in many cases - but so far it's not worth the cost and effort of covering potential hazards compared to using part of a person to handle it.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:45
add a comment |
I've seen in a documentary that many airports have people guiding the airplanes to the parking spots (marshals). I've also noticed that the key point is to reach a precise spot on which the nose landing gear has to be placed. Couldn't that be solved with a camera installed on the landing gear itself so the pilots can check whether they go along the lines and finally reach the precise spot?
airport taxiing
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
I've seen in a documentary that many airports have people guiding the airplanes to the parking spots (marshals). I've also noticed that the key point is to reach a precise spot on which the nose landing gear has to be placed. Couldn't that be solved with a camera installed on the landing gear itself so the pilots can check whether they go along the lines and finally reach the precise spot?
airport taxiing
airport taxiing
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:35
M28
1,994622
1,994622
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:05
Claudix
6702919
6702919
7
@RussellMcMahon - that is completelly and utterly false. As someone whose job is software development, that's like you said walking carefully outperforms flying in a 747. The only reason is cost.
– Davor
Dec 22 '18 at 10:31
1
Think of it this way, (and I'm going to completely fabricate these numbers): Any extra weight requires extra fuel to be carried. Say 10 kg of weight might require 1 kg extra fuel. Across a fleet of aircraft, even a very small increase in weight can have a profound impact on fuel costs. Said another way, a human marshaller is likely more cost effective than installing such a system. At least for now.
– user16289
Dec 22 '18 at 14:31
6
camera installed on the landing gear? What about wingtips? and the top of the tail. or 180 degrees to the right, where some jackass is about to cut me off. or there's some lady chasing her kid, or baggage flying around; debris on the runway, etc. (locusts!) Cat and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria!
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:49
1
@user16289 They do have taxi cameras on large aircraft already because its impractical to have a human marshaller accompany the airplane to the runway.
– user71659
Dec 22 '18 at 21:31
1
@Davor You misunderstood what I said / I could have been clearer :-). I meant that the cost of implementing protection measures that meet all eventualities in eg the random-threat rich environment of taxiing amongst people, aircraft, unexpected material and protrusions, un or partially authorised people, ... - is so far much more $ costly than using x% of a person to do the same thing. A well enough programmed, sensor rich system can do the job better in many cases - but so far it's not worth the cost and effort of covering potential hazards compared to using part of a person to handle it.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:45
add a comment |
7
@RussellMcMahon - that is completelly and utterly false. As someone whose job is software development, that's like you said walking carefully outperforms flying in a 747. The only reason is cost.
– Davor
Dec 22 '18 at 10:31
1
Think of it this way, (and I'm going to completely fabricate these numbers): Any extra weight requires extra fuel to be carried. Say 10 kg of weight might require 1 kg extra fuel. Across a fleet of aircraft, even a very small increase in weight can have a profound impact on fuel costs. Said another way, a human marshaller is likely more cost effective than installing such a system. At least for now.
– user16289
Dec 22 '18 at 14:31
6
camera installed on the landing gear? What about wingtips? and the top of the tail. or 180 degrees to the right, where some jackass is about to cut me off. or there's some lady chasing her kid, or baggage flying around; debris on the runway, etc. (locusts!) Cat and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria!
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:49
1
@user16289 They do have taxi cameras on large aircraft already because its impractical to have a human marshaller accompany the airplane to the runway.
– user71659
Dec 22 '18 at 21:31
1
@Davor You misunderstood what I said / I could have been clearer :-). I meant that the cost of implementing protection measures that meet all eventualities in eg the random-threat rich environment of taxiing amongst people, aircraft, unexpected material and protrusions, un or partially authorised people, ... - is so far much more $ costly than using x% of a person to do the same thing. A well enough programmed, sensor rich system can do the job better in many cases - but so far it's not worth the cost and effort of covering potential hazards compared to using part of a person to handle it.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:45
7
7
@RussellMcMahon - that is completelly and utterly false. As someone whose job is software development, that's like you said walking carefully outperforms flying in a 747. The only reason is cost.
– Davor
Dec 22 '18 at 10:31
@RussellMcMahon - that is completelly and utterly false. As someone whose job is software development, that's like you said walking carefully outperforms flying in a 747. The only reason is cost.
– Davor
Dec 22 '18 at 10:31
1
1
Think of it this way, (and I'm going to completely fabricate these numbers): Any extra weight requires extra fuel to be carried. Say 10 kg of weight might require 1 kg extra fuel. Across a fleet of aircraft, even a very small increase in weight can have a profound impact on fuel costs. Said another way, a human marshaller is likely more cost effective than installing such a system. At least for now.
– user16289
Dec 22 '18 at 14:31
Think of it this way, (and I'm going to completely fabricate these numbers): Any extra weight requires extra fuel to be carried. Say 10 kg of weight might require 1 kg extra fuel. Across a fleet of aircraft, even a very small increase in weight can have a profound impact on fuel costs. Said another way, a human marshaller is likely more cost effective than installing such a system. At least for now.
– user16289
Dec 22 '18 at 14:31
6
6
camera installed on the landing gear? What about wingtips? and the top of the tail. or 180 degrees to the right, where some jackass is about to cut me off. or there's some lady chasing her kid, or baggage flying around; debris on the runway, etc. (locusts!) Cat and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria!
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:49
camera installed on the landing gear? What about wingtips? and the top of the tail. or 180 degrees to the right, where some jackass is about to cut me off. or there's some lady chasing her kid, or baggage flying around; debris on the runway, etc. (locusts!) Cat and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria!
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:49
1
1
@user16289 They do have taxi cameras on large aircraft already because its impractical to have a human marshaller accompany the airplane to the runway.
– user71659
Dec 22 '18 at 21:31
@user16289 They do have taxi cameras on large aircraft already because its impractical to have a human marshaller accompany the airplane to the runway.
– user71659
Dec 22 '18 at 21:31
1
1
@Davor You misunderstood what I said / I could have been clearer :-). I meant that the cost of implementing protection measures that meet all eventualities in eg the random-threat rich environment of taxiing amongst people, aircraft, unexpected material and protrusions, un or partially authorised people, ... - is so far much more $ costly than using x% of a person to do the same thing. A well enough programmed, sensor rich system can do the job better in many cases - but so far it's not worth the cost and effort of covering potential hazards compared to using part of a person to handle it.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:45
@Davor You misunderstood what I said / I could have been clearer :-). I meant that the cost of implementing protection measures that meet all eventualities in eg the random-threat rich environment of taxiing amongst people, aircraft, unexpected material and protrusions, un or partially authorised people, ... - is so far much more $ costly than using x% of a person to do the same thing. A well enough programmed, sensor rich system can do the job better in many cases - but so far it's not worth the cost and effort of covering potential hazards compared to using part of a person to handle it.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:45
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There are automated systems that provide the same function as a marshal. They are in place at some airports but not all since upgrades cost money and not all airports may see a use for it.
At smaller fields marshals often serve multiple roles aside from just guiding aircraft they may also handle baggage, pump fuel, drive tugs and all the other various ramp jobs. In this case it may be more cost effective to keep a marshal around than instal a costly automated system that only replaces one of their jobs.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
These also may fail in low visibility conditions such as heavy fog, requiring human marshallers to go out and replace the automated system.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 4:40
@MichaelHampton, isn't the automated system installed at about the same place the marshal is standing anyway?
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 9:18
A Marshall will know to adapt so he can see. Get fog lights, walk closer, get a second person, etc.
– Nelson
Dec 22 '18 at 19:00
1
@JanHudec It depends on the model. Some use lasers which get scattered by fog. Other models which use visual imaging from CCD cameras do better in low visibility. The Wikipedia article that Dave linked to in this answer has a good summary of the different types.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 22:12
@MichaelHampton, oh, right, I thought about issues with pilot seeing the system, but not the issues with the system knowing the position of the aircraft, which is, however, the more tricky part.
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 22:16
|
show 1 more comment
You are talking about aircraft marshalling, not sky marshal.
When an aircraft comes a gate, one of the tasks is to park on a designated spot. A marshal will help in that, and so can a camera do that. But there are many other tasks assigned to a marshal, and cameras cannot do those tasks.
This is part of the broader ramp services. The services related to aircraft directly are:
- inserting and pulling chocks
- indicating when can engines be started and shut off
- navigating on ground
- informing pilots if they need to change taxi speed
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
You will always need boots on the ground to make sure no one gets sucked out of theirs. This would be the last job to go after everything else is automated, if even then.
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:36
@Mazura - akin to LSO / Paddles / Batsman (or current more automated but still "a real person") on a carrier. Many do not realise that the guy with the paddles is a qualified pilot - which makes perfect sense on reflection.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58290%2fwhy-is-aircraft-marshalling-still-necessary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are automated systems that provide the same function as a marshal. They are in place at some airports but not all since upgrades cost money and not all airports may see a use for it.
At smaller fields marshals often serve multiple roles aside from just guiding aircraft they may also handle baggage, pump fuel, drive tugs and all the other various ramp jobs. In this case it may be more cost effective to keep a marshal around than instal a costly automated system that only replaces one of their jobs.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
These also may fail in low visibility conditions such as heavy fog, requiring human marshallers to go out and replace the automated system.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 4:40
@MichaelHampton, isn't the automated system installed at about the same place the marshal is standing anyway?
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 9:18
A Marshall will know to adapt so he can see. Get fog lights, walk closer, get a second person, etc.
– Nelson
Dec 22 '18 at 19:00
1
@JanHudec It depends on the model. Some use lasers which get scattered by fog. Other models which use visual imaging from CCD cameras do better in low visibility. The Wikipedia article that Dave linked to in this answer has a good summary of the different types.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 22:12
@MichaelHampton, oh, right, I thought about issues with pilot seeing the system, but not the issues with the system knowing the position of the aircraft, which is, however, the more tricky part.
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 22:16
|
show 1 more comment
There are automated systems that provide the same function as a marshal. They are in place at some airports but not all since upgrades cost money and not all airports may see a use for it.
At smaller fields marshals often serve multiple roles aside from just guiding aircraft they may also handle baggage, pump fuel, drive tugs and all the other various ramp jobs. In this case it may be more cost effective to keep a marshal around than instal a costly automated system that only replaces one of their jobs.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
These also may fail in low visibility conditions such as heavy fog, requiring human marshallers to go out and replace the automated system.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 4:40
@MichaelHampton, isn't the automated system installed at about the same place the marshal is standing anyway?
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 9:18
A Marshall will know to adapt so he can see. Get fog lights, walk closer, get a second person, etc.
– Nelson
Dec 22 '18 at 19:00
1
@JanHudec It depends on the model. Some use lasers which get scattered by fog. Other models which use visual imaging from CCD cameras do better in low visibility. The Wikipedia article that Dave linked to in this answer has a good summary of the different types.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 22:12
@MichaelHampton, oh, right, I thought about issues with pilot seeing the system, but not the issues with the system knowing the position of the aircraft, which is, however, the more tricky part.
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 22:16
|
show 1 more comment
There are automated systems that provide the same function as a marshal. They are in place at some airports but not all since upgrades cost money and not all airports may see a use for it.
At smaller fields marshals often serve multiple roles aside from just guiding aircraft they may also handle baggage, pump fuel, drive tugs and all the other various ramp jobs. In this case it may be more cost effective to keep a marshal around than instal a costly automated system that only replaces one of their jobs.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
There are automated systems that provide the same function as a marshal. They are in place at some airports but not all since upgrades cost money and not all airports may see a use for it.
At smaller fields marshals often serve multiple roles aside from just guiding aircraft they may also handle baggage, pump fuel, drive tugs and all the other various ramp jobs. In this case it may be more cost effective to keep a marshal around than instal a costly automated system that only replaces one of their jobs.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:14
Dave
61.9k4110224
61.9k4110224
These also may fail in low visibility conditions such as heavy fog, requiring human marshallers to go out and replace the automated system.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 4:40
@MichaelHampton, isn't the automated system installed at about the same place the marshal is standing anyway?
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 9:18
A Marshall will know to adapt so he can see. Get fog lights, walk closer, get a second person, etc.
– Nelson
Dec 22 '18 at 19:00
1
@JanHudec It depends on the model. Some use lasers which get scattered by fog. Other models which use visual imaging from CCD cameras do better in low visibility. The Wikipedia article that Dave linked to in this answer has a good summary of the different types.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 22:12
@MichaelHampton, oh, right, I thought about issues with pilot seeing the system, but not the issues with the system knowing the position of the aircraft, which is, however, the more tricky part.
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 22:16
|
show 1 more comment
These also may fail in low visibility conditions such as heavy fog, requiring human marshallers to go out and replace the automated system.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 4:40
@MichaelHampton, isn't the automated system installed at about the same place the marshal is standing anyway?
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 9:18
A Marshall will know to adapt so he can see. Get fog lights, walk closer, get a second person, etc.
– Nelson
Dec 22 '18 at 19:00
1
@JanHudec It depends on the model. Some use lasers which get scattered by fog. Other models which use visual imaging from CCD cameras do better in low visibility. The Wikipedia article that Dave linked to in this answer has a good summary of the different types.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 22:12
@MichaelHampton, oh, right, I thought about issues with pilot seeing the system, but not the issues with the system knowing the position of the aircraft, which is, however, the more tricky part.
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 22:16
These also may fail in low visibility conditions such as heavy fog, requiring human marshallers to go out and replace the automated system.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 4:40
These also may fail in low visibility conditions such as heavy fog, requiring human marshallers to go out and replace the automated system.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 4:40
@MichaelHampton, isn't the automated system installed at about the same place the marshal is standing anyway?
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 9:18
@MichaelHampton, isn't the automated system installed at about the same place the marshal is standing anyway?
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 9:18
A Marshall will know to adapt so he can see. Get fog lights, walk closer, get a second person, etc.
– Nelson
Dec 22 '18 at 19:00
A Marshall will know to adapt so he can see. Get fog lights, walk closer, get a second person, etc.
– Nelson
Dec 22 '18 at 19:00
1
1
@JanHudec It depends on the model. Some use lasers which get scattered by fog. Other models which use visual imaging from CCD cameras do better in low visibility. The Wikipedia article that Dave linked to in this answer has a good summary of the different types.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 22:12
@JanHudec It depends on the model. Some use lasers which get scattered by fog. Other models which use visual imaging from CCD cameras do better in low visibility. The Wikipedia article that Dave linked to in this answer has a good summary of the different types.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 22 '18 at 22:12
@MichaelHampton, oh, right, I thought about issues with pilot seeing the system, but not the issues with the system knowing the position of the aircraft, which is, however, the more tricky part.
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 22:16
@MichaelHampton, oh, right, I thought about issues with pilot seeing the system, but not the issues with the system knowing the position of the aircraft, which is, however, the more tricky part.
– Jan Hudec
Dec 22 '18 at 22:16
|
show 1 more comment
You are talking about aircraft marshalling, not sky marshal.
When an aircraft comes a gate, one of the tasks is to park on a designated spot. A marshal will help in that, and so can a camera do that. But there are many other tasks assigned to a marshal, and cameras cannot do those tasks.
This is part of the broader ramp services. The services related to aircraft directly are:
- inserting and pulling chocks
- indicating when can engines be started and shut off
- navigating on ground
- informing pilots if they need to change taxi speed
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
You will always need boots on the ground to make sure no one gets sucked out of theirs. This would be the last job to go after everything else is automated, if even then.
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:36
@Mazura - akin to LSO / Paddles / Batsman (or current more automated but still "a real person") on a carrier. Many do not realise that the guy with the paddles is a qualified pilot - which makes perfect sense on reflection.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:53
add a comment |
You are talking about aircraft marshalling, not sky marshal.
When an aircraft comes a gate, one of the tasks is to park on a designated spot. A marshal will help in that, and so can a camera do that. But there are many other tasks assigned to a marshal, and cameras cannot do those tasks.
This is part of the broader ramp services. The services related to aircraft directly are:
- inserting and pulling chocks
- indicating when can engines be started and shut off
- navigating on ground
- informing pilots if they need to change taxi speed
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
You will always need boots on the ground to make sure no one gets sucked out of theirs. This would be the last job to go after everything else is automated, if even then.
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:36
@Mazura - akin to LSO / Paddles / Batsman (or current more automated but still "a real person") on a carrier. Many do not realise that the guy with the paddles is a qualified pilot - which makes perfect sense on reflection.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:53
add a comment |
You are talking about aircraft marshalling, not sky marshal.
When an aircraft comes a gate, one of the tasks is to park on a designated spot. A marshal will help in that, and so can a camera do that. But there are many other tasks assigned to a marshal, and cameras cannot do those tasks.
This is part of the broader ramp services. The services related to aircraft directly are:
- inserting and pulling chocks
- indicating when can engines be started and shut off
- navigating on ground
- informing pilots if they need to change taxi speed
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
You are talking about aircraft marshalling, not sky marshal.
When an aircraft comes a gate, one of the tasks is to park on a designated spot. A marshal will help in that, and so can a camera do that. But there are many other tasks assigned to a marshal, and cameras cannot do those tasks.
This is part of the broader ramp services. The services related to aircraft directly are:
- inserting and pulling chocks
- indicating when can engines be started and shut off
- navigating on ground
- informing pilots if they need to change taxi speed
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:16
Farhan♦
24.6k1485158
24.6k1485158
You will always need boots on the ground to make sure no one gets sucked out of theirs. This would be the last job to go after everything else is automated, if even then.
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:36
@Mazura - akin to LSO / Paddles / Batsman (or current more automated but still "a real person") on a carrier. Many do not realise that the guy with the paddles is a qualified pilot - which makes perfect sense on reflection.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:53
add a comment |
You will always need boots on the ground to make sure no one gets sucked out of theirs. This would be the last job to go after everything else is automated, if even then.
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:36
@Mazura - akin to LSO / Paddles / Batsman (or current more automated but still "a real person") on a carrier. Many do not realise that the guy with the paddles is a qualified pilot - which makes perfect sense on reflection.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:53
You will always need boots on the ground to make sure no one gets sucked out of theirs. This would be the last job to go after everything else is automated, if even then.
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:36
You will always need boots on the ground to make sure no one gets sucked out of theirs. This would be the last job to go after everything else is automated, if even then.
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:36
@Mazura - akin to LSO / Paddles / Batsman (or current more automated but still "a real person") on a carrier. Many do not realise that the guy with the paddles is a qualified pilot - which makes perfect sense on reflection.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:53
@Mazura - akin to LSO / Paddles / Batsman (or current more automated but still "a real person") on a carrier. Many do not realise that the guy with the paddles is a qualified pilot - which makes perfect sense on reflection.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58290%2fwhy-is-aircraft-marshalling-still-necessary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
@RussellMcMahon - that is completelly and utterly false. As someone whose job is software development, that's like you said walking carefully outperforms flying in a 747. The only reason is cost.
– Davor
Dec 22 '18 at 10:31
1
Think of it this way, (and I'm going to completely fabricate these numbers): Any extra weight requires extra fuel to be carried. Say 10 kg of weight might require 1 kg extra fuel. Across a fleet of aircraft, even a very small increase in weight can have a profound impact on fuel costs. Said another way, a human marshaller is likely more cost effective than installing such a system. At least for now.
– user16289
Dec 22 '18 at 14:31
6
camera installed on the landing gear? What about wingtips? and the top of the tail. or 180 degrees to the right, where some jackass is about to cut me off. or there's some lady chasing her kid, or baggage flying around; debris on the runway, etc. (locusts!) Cat and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria!
– Mazura
Dec 22 '18 at 17:49
1
@user16289 They do have taxi cameras on large aircraft already because its impractical to have a human marshaller accompany the airplane to the runway.
– user71659
Dec 22 '18 at 21:31
1
@Davor You misunderstood what I said / I could have been clearer :-). I meant that the cost of implementing protection measures that meet all eventualities in eg the random-threat rich environment of taxiing amongst people, aircraft, unexpected material and protrusions, un or partially authorised people, ... - is so far much more $ costly than using x% of a person to do the same thing. A well enough programmed, sensor rich system can do the job better in many cases - but so far it's not worth the cost and effort of covering potential hazards compared to using part of a person to handle it.
– Russell McMahon
Dec 24 '18 at 10:45