Comment by Guest19023892 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Guest19023892 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What's the advantages of a human compared to a computer for landing in rough weather? I would think it's a fairly logical problem. Wind is rotating the plane left, need to move the stick right. Wind is pulling the plane up, need to slow down or push the stick forward, etc. Need to make adjustments past safe levels or can't keep the plane level enough means it's too rough and the landing needs to be aborted. In my mind, it seems like the thing that's perfect for a computer. It can instantly take into consideration hundreds of precise measurements, sensors, and history, and make corrections for the precise amounts. A human has a much slower reaction time and can't make adjustments with the same degree of precision. I feel like a computer could correct a quick gust of wind before a person even has time to move their hand.

Compared to a self-driving car where you have all sorts of situations that require complex analysis, like trying to determine if that's a person lying on the highway or an empty garbage bag, this seems like it should be a walk in the park.

Autoland systems and humans have different limitations. Humans are limited by visibility, because we look out the window and control the final parts of the landing by what we see. The autopilot is limited by wind restrictions, because the control input rates of an airport are limited.

That limitation is there because the sensor inputs aren't as good as you think. Looking out the window reacts much faster to wind gusts than receiving a radio signal to determine runway line-up.

If you want to have a computer execute a full autoland in varying and gusting crosswind you'll probably need it to use cameras and computer vision, but then it becomes limited by the same visibility issues humans have.

You would think we wouldn’t have an endless string of 0-day exploits for operating systems as well but here we are, for the last 25 years. It should be a simple and logical problem as well.

An operating system has to be able to handle arbitrary data, arbitrary network traffic, and arbitrary user input, with the goal of enabling its operator to perform arbitrary computation.

That might be a slightly less tractable problem than controlling a fixed set of flight systems to maneuver an aircraft with a fixed set of degrees of freedom.

Definitely not to understate the complexity of flight systems software at all, but the analogy to operating systems seems unhelpful.

I think one of the key things computers aren't as good as people are is communication. There is a lot of info that a human can convey with a short sentence that a computer would have no chance of doing. The ability for a human to effectively communicate with ground, tower and other aircraft in inclement weather is key.

Computer systems can obviously also communicate over radio, and almost certainly at a higher information density than a human operator.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com