Originally Posted by O2pilot

A robot would not have landed in the Hudson unless he was programmed to do that. The MAX disasters are a perfect example of how how well programming airplanes works. We’d probably have had many more MAX crashes if not for human pilots. I still don’t understand what problem replacing proven,safe, and cheap human pilots solves by trying to cut us out, other than self-absorbed paranoid pilots who think the whole world is out to get them!

We are a funny bunch for sure.

Originally Posted by KonaJoe

Who said anything about human induced? A malfunction by definition isn't pilot induced. That's what makes it a malfunction. And if you really live with this sentiment, you should quit flying and let a more competent and confident human take your place.

The latest trend of crashes proves one thing clearly. Ab-initio programs are detrimental to safety. In other words: less experience means more crashy. That is a case where you can argue the weakest link is the pilot. And even those crashes had malfunctions. How would an aircraft with no pitot data land itself? (Air France). Even in the future? Yet it was totally flyable by an experienced pilot. The one who crashed it was a 1500hr ab-initio baby.

Humans the weakest link? Your copies of William Langeweische articles must be really stuck together.

Originally Posted by High on sky

Half the problem was a lack of redundancy (only getting a single AOA input). The other was letting the system activate numerous times without limits. These were (poor) decisions made by human engineers that were then programmed into the airplane. Having automation in the airplane is not the problem. Having poorly vetted automation in the airplane is problem.

Originally Posted by O2pilot

True. Based on the fact we are still flying planes designed 50+ years ago, I’d say we are 100+ years from AI planes. (Not counting short distance drones)

Originally Posted by High on sky

Ummmmm you? I recall you saying "Most hull losses that are blamed on pilot error occurred because of a malfunction that was mishandled."

Originally Posted by DarinFred

I think this is going to cost a lot more than anyone thinks. $1000/hr crew cost for a built in, trainable crew will be cheap in comparison when it’s all said in done.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine

I don't know of many 8,000 ft runways with no approaches. And actually Garmin has already designed an emergency AP function that will recognize an incapacitated pilot and will land the plane at the nearest suitable (it looks at weather and runway performance) airport and will notify emergency services. It requires no ground navigation soruces, so it can conduct the equivalent of a CAT III approach to any runway in its database.



I sure hope not. I am sure the computer will be smart enough to know that low approaches provide no useful data since the tower controllers are not trained in evaluating landing gear failures from a mile away while the aircraft zooms by at 160 mph. And either way, the computer will run the same checklist whether tower says, "The gear looks like its down" or they say, "The gear is partially down"



The answer to all of these is yes. Humans were able to write all of those QRH procedures, so humans can also program those procedures in code. Whatever techniques you were taught can also be programed with the benefit of perfect recall and execution.

Sure we can try to come up with all the possible scenarios where a human pilot is better, but the programers will think of the same scenarios and will program the same response. There WILL be unthinkable scenarios outside the limits of the programming, but then you have to wonder if the average pilot would do better and even if they could, odds are the safety record on a whole would be better than human pilots. 1549 is a perfect example. Sim tests showed that the flight COULD have returned to LGA if you remove human reaction time. Lots of the pilots who attempted this failed however. Even though the crew of 1549 did an amazing job, a computer could have done better simply because it would have almost no reaction time and could troubleshoot the problem while executing a perfect flight path adjusting for the exact gross weight and winds.

But there is no need to worry, pilotless planes won't be a threat because to make a pilotless plane that is better than a human pilot would require lots of money and more importantly, it would require the entire world to rebuild the airspace system. Considering how long it took the FAA to integrate GPS, the ADS-B out debacle, and the fact that some countries still insist on using meters I'm not too worried.

Originally Posted by Boeing Aviator

My two cents.

When the majority of adults over 35 to 40 have grown up in a automated society most specifically cars, buses and trucks and it’s a generally accepted norm. Then will start the move to pilotless aircraft. Until then the technology may be available but it will not be universally accepted. I believe pilots will be one of the last jobs automated and replaced by robots.

Doctors, lawyers etc. will be replaced before pilots in my humble opinion. I believe most on this forum will be retired before this happens for pilotless airliners.

Originally Posted by detpilot

Ok, so how about putting it in a cornfield?

Originally Posted by detpilot

And a computer may not care if the gear is partially down or appears down and locked, but most human pilots certainly would care. Same checklist or not.