Hacker News Reader

Comment by koonsolo | Hacker News Reader

The same can be said about airplanes, which have a way longer history of automation.

Anything in an airplane is automated: takeoff, flying and landing. Pilots make mistakes all the time, but they still need to do things manually to keep their practice high.

People just do not want to go in an airplane without any pilots. In metro's it's not that obvious if someone is driving it or not. But airplanes, 'we' want a human pilot to be in control, else we feel unsafe. I think the same can be said about cars.

View on HN

> Anything in an airplane is automated: takeoff, flying and landing

With airplanes there's a whole system in place to make sure that every airplane essentially gets its own private road. This simplifies the problem of automation immensely.

For airliners and other IFR traffic, that is almost (but not quite) true. In the US, the overwhelming majority of airspace below 18K feet and the vast majority of airports do not require any air-traffic-control interaction at all. It's "see and avoid" under VFR in those areas.

"Feeling" has nothing to do with the issue. Current autopilots are generally unable to cope with equipment failures. The pilots are primarily there to deal with unexpected failure modes.

Most of the failures have multiple backups, and most scenarios are also accounted for on how to handle them.

So maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how autopilots couldn't be programmed to handle most kinds of failures (engine failure etc). Unless the failure is with the autopilot itself of course (which could have backup systems)

Most of the accidents with airplanes are caused by humans (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_...). So the real question is if automatic recovery would still be incapable of offsetting all the human errors.

It is impossible to program an autopilot to handle unexpected failure modes; there are essentially an infinite number of possible failures. Experienced human pilots can often figure out how to recover the situation based on applying fundamental principles. Computers won't be able to do that until we have something close to AGI.

For a prime example, see US Airways Flight 1549. The pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles intentionally disregarded part of the official procedure for handling a dual engine failure because they realized it wasn't suitable for their current situation.

FAA Part 121 flights are already so safe that trying to improve safety by taking humans out of the loop would be nonsensical. In some recent years literally more people in the US have died by falling out of bed than were killed in commercial aviation accidents.

Thanks for the explanation, you seem to know your stuff. In that case it doesn't make much sense indeed.

My favourite pinnacle moment in the history of plane automation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJkEYAy7Qc4

Reply on news.ycombinator.com