[Mongoose]

Honestly I kinda wonder why they don't have co-pilots on buses and trains.

There's definitely more than one person on train crews, and as for buses, you'd assume that most riders would be able to mash the brake pedal if something incapacitated the driver.

[rscaper1070]

Whoa did I say fighter? I meant to say Commercial Airliner! ...wow 

I knew what you meant, it just struck me funny. I could totally see it..."Fly Blackwater Airlines....Or Else." 

[-Norbert-]

Honestly I kinda wonder why they don't have co-pilots on buses and trains.

There's definitely more than one person on train crews, and as for buses, you'd assume that most riders would be able to mash the brake pedal if something incapacitated the driver.

That depends on what kind of train and what place we are talking about.
I know for sure that the subways trains have only one driver. And here in Austria even that one driver isn't really driving the train. The train runs fully automated, with the driver only being there for safety reasons, so he can take over in case the automatic ever shorts out and to advice the passengers in case of emergencies.
Even the regional trians, which do not run on automatics, have only one driver. As far as I'm aware only the really long-range trains, going to other countries (and maybe the heavy freight trains - don't know much about them) have a "co-driver".

[Killer Whale]

Compile sensor data into targeting data, manage lock on, calculate subspace jumps, press all the buttons which the pilot is too busy to, damage control, manage energy, heat, delta-V (if it exists) and ammunition, take-over in case of pilot fatigue (long distance patrols) or incapacitation, fire the turrets, provide an additional set of eyes for added situational awareness, properly manage shields in more than 4 directions, navigate, communicate when the pilot's too busy not getting shot (including changes of frequency and encryption), commence processes such as scans, distract the pilot with benign conversation, die dramatically, that sort of stuff.

[BengalTiger]

Honestly I kinda wonder why they don't have co-pilots on buses and trains.

Don't (freight) trains have a crew of 2 in the locomotive?

[Dragon]

Honestly I kinda wonder why they don't have co-pilots on buses and trains.

Long range buses have more than one driver, and city ones work just like cars. If the driver falls unconscious, he can't keep the gas pedal down and the bus stops (they're heavy, so they won't roll far). Maybe you noticed, if you put your foot on the gas pedal in your car, it'll fall off if you won't consciously keep it there.
As for trains, many of them (at least, newer ones) have computer control essentially acting as the first driver, and the human is the "copilot" who's mostly responsible for pressing the deadman's switch. IIRC, they swap every few stations. Freight trains may have a bigger crew for the same reasons as long range buses.

Also, keep in mind deadman's switch doesn't work in a plane. If you let go of the controls in a bus or train, even a ship, they'll stop. A plane will drop to the ground sooner or later (in most cases, they'll fly in straight line until fuel runs out, but won't automatically land themselves). And swapping airliner pilots at every airport wouldn't work for multiple reasons.

[Damage]

The second pilot (co-pilot, whatever) is there to provide the pilot with a constant stream of useful advice.  "Shoot that one!  He's turning this way!  Did you see it slide like that?  You should've..." and so on.


Honestly, aside from it just looking awesome, I figured he was intended to do all the secondary weapons work for the pilot, like firing off the anti-warship ordnance, working the defensive turret(s) as well as operating other defensive measures for the bomber.  Just like others have posted here and as is seen in current aircraft.

As an aside, I always considered that a modified bomber (with expanded electronic and communications capabilities) would potentially be a good "command craft" for long-range strike missions, where the strike commander could direct the other members of his squadron from a stand-off position, whilst providing fire support with long-range weapons like a Trebuchet or Maxim.

[Al-Rik]

The second pilot (co-pilot, whatever) is there to provide the pilot with a constant stream of useful advice.  "Shoot that one!  He's turning this way!  Did you see it slide like that?  You should've..." and so on.

That's the way it works in Battlefield 2 then you and a buddy fly a F 15 or an other Fighter with to seats.

The pilot flys, the gunner uses the Ingame Menu to spot enemies or to set Attack Orders.
 

[FIZ]

Another pair of eyes would come in handy even in a fighter.  Would be cool to mark Dragons or hostile bombers a different color than red on command.  Need voice compatibility for my R2 unit in FOTG hehehe

[esarai]

As people are pointing out, there are often more than one person in any major operating situation, and their tasks are quite different from each other.

Going back to commercial airliners, I took a flight course once, the co-pilot's duty is to make sure the pilot doesn't skip parts of the startup, takeoff and landing procedures, and to take over in the event the pilot becomes incapacitated.  Also on long flights, they take turns flying the craft.

The locomotive gave us the 'dead man's switch,' since engineers dying while out on a solo long-haul freight runs became something of a problem, so they installed it to make sure that if the engineer or the engineering crew was unable to operate the train (either by not being in the cab for 5 minutes or being dead), it would automatically stop itself. 

[Kolgena]

He could be managing bomb targeting, trajectory calculations, and detonation times. I always thought it queer that you couldn't fire bombs off without a lock, but if their operation was a lot more complicated than "shoot it, let it run into something and explode" (especially since a single harbinger is enough to cause nuclear winter/isaac newton is the baddest sonofa***** in space), having a copilot managing stuff might make more sense.

So in my mind, the copilot/technician is for bombs and turret control.

[IronBeer]

So in my mind, the copilot/technician is for bombs and turret control.

I'm just gonna pop in real quick to agree with this, and any prior statements to that approximate effect.

Starlancer is the best example I can readily think of with a persistent co-pilot. He mans a small turret on your fighter's back, and apparently does everything except for flying and fighting. Might be cool to build a campaign around 2-seater ships, and having a persistent co-pilot/RIO.

[Mongoose]

He could be managing bomb targeting, trajectory calculations, and detonation times. I always thought it queer that you couldn't fire bombs off without a lock, but if their operation was a lot more complicated than "shoot it, let it run into something and explode" (especially since a single harbinger is enough to cause nuclear winter/isaac newton is the baddest sonofa***** in space), having a copilot managing stuff might make more sense.

So in my mind, the copilot/technician is for bombs and turret control.

This makes a lot of sense, and is a legitimate reason for the no-dumbfire mechanic.

[z64555]

He could be managing bomb targeting, trajectory calculations, and detonation times. I always thought it queer that you couldn't fire bombs off without a lock, but if their operation was a lot more complicated than "shoot it, let it run into something and explode" (especially since a single harbinger is enough to cause nuclear winter/isaac newton is the baddest sonofa***** in space), having a copilot managing stuff might make more sense.

So in my mind, the copilot/technician is for bombs and turret control.

This makes a lot of sense, and is a legitimate reason for the no-dumbfire mechanic.

It's a very convincing safety mechanic, as I don't think you would want a harbinger/cyclops/etc. colliding with a friendly or neutral craft.

[Dragon]

Also, bombers would sometimes burst-fire Tempests to bombard weaker targets. Hold on the trigger for too long and the bank may switch to torps. I've tried making a "lockarm" torpedo, and ended up wasting a lot of them during testing.

[qwadtep]

Also, bombers would sometimes burst-fire Tempests to bombard weaker targets. Hold on the trigger for too long and the bank may switch to torps. I've tried making a "lockarm" torpedo, and ended up wasting a lot of them during testing.

For a practical demonstration, load both Hellfires and Slammers in BP and shoot at close range.

[Kolgena]

What do you mean you can't survive a point blank slammer detonation?

[Dragon]

It used to be like that during testing. Now it should arm after clearing the launcher, but that can still damage you, plus it's a wasted Slammer.