Hacker News Reader

Comment by rwmj | Hacker News Reader

Why are they designing a plane with pilots? Why not automate that, perhaps with a remote option where a pilot sitting on the ground can take over in emergency/unusual situations?

View on HN

Because we simply can't trust computers & systems engineering 100%. Go read about Flight QF72:

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-o...

You've mentioned one story, but how about the countless cases where the pilots are the problem?

Those are not mutually exclusive. Automation has made flying much safer, but currently, there are edge cases where human could fix issues if they knew what the airplane was doing and were able to take over. This is not an isolated case.

As with any automated transport discussion, there's the question of liability. If a pilot is at fault, there's an obvious liability on them. People have an intrinsic trust of a human pilot to sort out an issue if it arises, versus relying on a computer which is a complete black box to the passengers. If a pilot is at fault, it's a forgivable thing - in the worst cases the families have some closure, some level of "the pilot messed up, such is life". If a machine or system is at fault, who's to blame? The engineer? The programmer? The maintenance worker? The airline for procuring a cheap contract?

And there's countless cases where it all starter "autopilot disengaged ..."

I don't mind paying 1% of ticket cost to pilots when it's hundreds of life in question. It's very different when you have 500 passengers and 1 passenger in a 35k car.

Or Scandinavian 751, the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7...

Automation has made flying safer, as pointed out in the article you link, but we have entered a new era where humans can no longer trust computers nor fully take over control.

> the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes

I don't know where that part comes from, it's not mentioned in the wikipedia page, nor any of the sources or on the swedish version of the page (together with the sources). Would be interesting if there really is a phobia of more technically advanced airplanes, but I don't think this is one of those cases.

They talked about in one of those crash investigation show.

There are research done in this domain, but unfortunately can not find the reference right now. Basically, even though there are less and less airplane accidents, a common theme now is the pilots saying "I don't understand what the plane is doing".

PS: This is the pilot in question, there is a reference to the "Mayday" episode where he is interviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_G._Rasmussen

What advantage would an autonomous passenger airliner provide? By removing the cockpit and the pilots, you get a few more passengers and perhaps a few premium priced seats at the very front. The cost of having the pilots in the cockpit doesn't make a big difference in the operating costs, and there would still be crew needed on the ground and on board.

Compare this with the costs of such a project, with ground systems facilities, extra development costs, regulatory hurdles. Then you have the human element, having no pilot on board would certainly scare away some passengers but more importantly would make the whole project seem much riskier from an investors' point of view.

While it's feasible from a technological standpoint, it's not a worthwhile effort to consider at this day and age. There just isn't much to be gained by not having pilots on board.

I won't fly in a plane without a pilot, I want some professional who can assess plane's technical state to be on board so he/she will do the job right, because they will be risking their own lives if something's wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com