The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in com

The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
"The computerized on-board 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."

In drawing this conclusion author not only fails to account the statistical data pertinent to mid air collision but also draws conclusion without any evidence. Furthermore, Author’s conclusion is too strong without substantiating premises. Author also overlooks various other possibility relevant to midair collision .There are several flaws for the above argument.

First, Author concluded that the computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airlines will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collision without considering the other categories of aircraft. For example, there is a possibility of collision between cargo aircraft and fighter aircraft. Author must try to consider all the factors to recommend a prudent decision.

Second, Author argues that one plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder in order to determine the likelihood of collision and recommend evasive action. However, author ignored the fact that planes travel at very high speed, which doesn’t give pilot ample amount of time to react and to take evasive action. Furthermore, there are variety of airlines on global scale and it is not feasible to convince every airline to buy such warning system.

Third, Author assumes that there is no other radio signal, which could interfere with plane’s radio signal. For example, almost in every commercial airlines there are strict instruction given by cabin crew to switch off the mobile or place it on airplane mode to avoid interference of radio signals. The interference could worsen the situation rather than resolving it. In this case author must identify and explore relevant factors to justify the solution. Furthermore, Author haven’t provided any statistical data about frequency of midair collision. It is possible that there are negligible midair collision.


If author could avoid the items mentioned above, the argument should have been more logical and credible. The argument could be strengthen if the author provided information considering all variety of aircrafts, feasibility and statistical data. As it stands, however the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.

The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
''The computerized on-board 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''


The daily newspaper claims that the midair collisions between two planes can be prevented by installing the computerized on-board warning system in commercial planes that will communicate through signals using radio transponders. This will assist the pilots in taking crucial decisions since they can gauge the probability or likelihood of any midair collision. The argument although sounds logical on certain front but seriously lacks evidence to support the claim and hence remains flawed on many grounds.

Firstly, the argument nowhere mentions about any evidence that similar installation has been done before even in railway or naval ships/cruise that might have reduced collisions or accidents considerably. There is no mention about how the communication will be established between the warning system of both planes that might be approaching each other on the same opposite course at a higher speed. In such a scenario there may not be ample duration for the installed warning system to generate signals and then for the pilots to take decision of changing the course or altering the altitude to allow the other to fly over or below.

In a popular TV documentary show, “Seconds from disaster” aired on NatGeo channel, it has been shown that sometime due to unfavorable weather conditions or harsh climate over certain regions the visibility becomes a great challenge. Under such condition, two commercial planes carrying over 300 passengers happen to proceed on the same course heading straight towards each other and the pilots are left in a dilemma as whether to change routes or altitude. Such a short span of time do not give them enough room to make a mutual decision and fly past each other. In many cases, such collisions were found to be results of ATC personnel’s mistakes, who either take a break leaving the radio transmitter unattended or unable to make correct decision within time. In such cases installing even smarter anti-collision systems wont help if there is any technical snag.

Secondly, the argument also doesn’t talk about the cost of installing such systems and whether such installations can be afforded by all airliner companies operating around the world. Furthermore, the midair collision are not the only cause of flight crashes or accidents that lead to loss of lives. There are many other factors that need serious attention when it comes to the safety of the passengers and the crew on board, which otherwise may lead to a commercial plane crash down on grounds. Such factors involve machinery failures in the cockpit and fuel leakage problems or even wheellock incidences. This should be first taken care of before looking into factors that have comparatively lower chances of occurrence.

Finally, the ATC should be more concerned and careful about navigating the commercial airliners and take proper surveillance on their paths and course of movement to prevent any sort of midair mishap. Although the argument sounds to be a good move towards preventing midair collisions but due to lack of evidences to support its claims, it remains flawed on many grounds and open to questions and doubts.

Can someone please rate my essay bb Bunuel AjiteshArun

The argument’s conclusion that the installation of an on-board warning system will solve problems of mid-air collisions- omits certain concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument.

The author seems to assume in his reasoning that the majority mid-air collisions that have happened in the past can be attributed to the inability to assess the likelihood of a collision.

Moreover, the author draws a blanket assumption that the computerized on-board warning system will function properly most of the time so much so that the likelihood of a collision can be assessed with great accuracy. Not just this, the argument also assumes that there would be enough technical expertise or operational capability in perhaps the personnel of the control unit in the commercial airlines to accurately interpret the right signals and thereby assess the likelihood of a collision.

Therefore, in order to assess or evaluate the author’s reasoning, it would be suitable to know: one, the probability of the warning system to assess the likelihood of a collision and two: if there exists personnel on the commercial airlines with sufficient operational capability to operate and interpret the computerized on-board warning system to execute the recommended evasive action by the computerized on-board warning system.

Hence, in the light of the above evaluations, it can be said that the author’s reasoning has unsupportive claims and can be weakened in case the warning system doesn’t detect the likelihood most of the time.