I'mOffOne

You can look up statistics on how often pilot error causes an airplane crash. It doesn't happen a lot when you consider how many thousands of flights there are a day, but it happens.

You can't look up statistics on how often pilot intervention keeps an airplane from crashing when systems fail or malfunction because the pilots land those flights safely. This happens every day. Probably dozens of times a day, if not more.

I probably encounter weather conditions or mechanical situations that the autopilot/automated systems can't handle once or twice a month. Only once that I can recall were the passengers aware that something malfunctioned because the situation required a diversion and emergency landing. I've had several times where the autopilot system just goes offline because it can't handle the situation (generally turbulence/weather related) or because it's malfunctioning. If you fly a lot, and most FlyerTalkers do, then you've almost certainly been on a flight where some system malfunctioned and the pilots took over from the automation.

Pilots are not worried about our jobs being replaced by computers.

Need

Ever seen any of these movies?

War Games
Tron
I, Robot
Resident Evil
Superman III
Robocop
Terminator
Matrix
2001: A Space Odyssey

Heh, but seriously, even if the computer has full control over everything, there is no way there isn't some kind of override on board a plane and a person there to do the override.

Paint Horse

No and no again since I must use at least five characters.

eajusa

I would not.

rpjs

Of course there has to be a human in the cockpit. Who would feed the dog otherwise?

gqZJzU4vusf0Z2,$d7

No. Not safer.

1. Spoofing GPS is easy, peasy. College students demo'd it. Then Iran used the technique to steal our RQ-170 Sentinel drone. It thought it was landing it home plate. But it wasn't.

2. Read the book QF32. Ain't no computer in the world that could've cope'd with that (cough) simple engine failure.

3. The vaunted Airbus automation may have contributed to Sully's Hudson River ditching. How so? The FADECs (engine control computers) were b....ing about engine problems and declining to let him further harm the engines. If he had the option of using (trashing) those engines for another 15-20 secs, he may have made it to TEB.

4. Enjoy:

http://www.realitydistortionfield.com/GoWrong.wav

WIRunner

If you notice that software updates are released fairly regularly for mobile phones, computers, general software, and sometimes that software update breaks things in an effort to fix things. I can't even get Siri or Google Now to understand me 100% of the time. I would not want to be on a plane that has had a software update done that a new error is discovered on. The risk of a remote hijacking is even more real.

There is no replacement, yet, for human intuition.

Internaut

I think we are very close, technologically, to being in a place where computers, backed up by humans on the ground, are more reliable than humans in the cockpit.

WIRunner

The latency that would be encountered may be too much to deal with. 1/2 second may be the difference between a safe outcome and a crash.

I'mOffOne

When my autopilot has been kicked offline by turbulence it's because the computer on the aircraft can't react fast enough to conditions to control the aircraft. This is also why there are pretty strict crosswind limits on autoland systems.

This.

GUWonder

Given some of the issues that unexpectedly disrupt USAF and CIA drone operations, I'm not so sure about that.

Also, adding too many cooks to a kitchen may not generally equate with consistency of output and a lack of other operational problems/risks.

I'm certainly a technophile, but I don't adopt the mantra that any and all technology is inherently a great solution to the needs of the time. Automation is not perfect, and the results of automation aren't always just what we think they are or will be.

seawolf

Same for BA32 - Both engines did not respond to commands. 0 fatalities. Computer will crap out as you can't program it to handle such an unimaginable scenario.

Yellowjj

You mean BA38. Wasn't the problem fuel starvation due to blocked lines. Abit different than Sully situation

traveller001

Fly by wire probably increased their odds of landing in the Hudson.

traveller001

There were pilots in a simulator after the fact who managed to land that plane at an airport.

It was obviously a long shot and safety chose the Hudson.

We're coming very close to real time flying without human pilots like it or not.