[ekianjo]

> It's pretty fucking simple for a computer to monitor the altitude of a plane and say "one of your planes has significantly deviated from it's target altitude".

Look, read the AF447 case again and the reports of what happened in the cockpit! The pilots were not EVEN listening to the different alarms being triggered in the cockpit and did not realize that they were in danger no matter how many instruments they had indicating major issues in front of them. In such situations what would make you think they would give a shit at what an automated message coming from a land operation would tell them ?

[m4x]

If a pilot on the ground had checked the telemetry and seen that a) the plane was stalled and b) the elevator was at max deflection, he would have asked why that was the case and the pilot who wasn't in control would have realised what was going on. We aren't talking about giving the flight crew another automated message or bombarding them with unwanted input, just allowing somebody in a more sterile/low stress environment to monitor the telemetry for obvious problems

Sometimes a fresh opinion, or some input from somebody who is removed from the situation, is all that you need to set you on the right track or break an assumption that you were incorrectly holding.

[ekianjo]

The accident occured in minutes, there was no time for a potential operator to do anything about it anyway. Too many "if" in your scenario to make it sound plausible.