A lot of accidents have been caused by the almost complete lack of automated monitoring and good alerting on airplanes.
I find it very surprising that there isn't at least non-AI software to monitor what the pilots are doing.
I find it very surprising that there isn't at least non-AI software to monitor what the pilots are doing.
Plenty of accidents follow similar patters: pilots forgot to enable some warning system, or ignored a warning because it came up in the wrong context, or where overwhelmed by the amount of checklists they had to do or by multiple alarms coming up at the same time.
There is no monitoring system that is aware of the full context, including the state of the plane, the history of previous warnings or malfunctions and the intentions of the pilots.
Its called the pilot. We even include a second system, fully programmed and built entirely by a separate team, to double-check and challenge the primary system: the copilot.
> Plenty of accidents follow similar patters: pilots forgot to enable some warning system, or ignored a warning because it came up in the wrong context, or where overwhelmed by the amount of checklists they had to do or by multiple alarms coming up at the same time.
And yet, commercial aviation is by far safer than driving. General aviation, with fewer of these systems is roughly the same as driving.
You also day plenty of accidents, but I'd be willing to bet that just as many if not more were situations beyond the pilots control.
You're also not comparing it to the number of times that pilots got out of sticky situations by following checklists and/or not having warnings suppressed.
This is much less safe than driving a car.
Can you please spare the patronizing tone?
> And yet, commercial aviation is by far safer than driving.
So what? It could be safer than what it already is.
> but I'd be willing to bet that just as many if not more were situations beyond the pilots control.
Then you should review a good number of accidents.
> You're also not comparing it to the number of times that pilots got out of sticky situations by following checklists and/or not having warnings suppressed
That's an incorrect comparison. I never said that the checklists should not be followed or anything like that.
Avionics: the original microservice infrastructure
For a multi-crew aircraft, I believe this is the entire point of Crew resource management [1].
> "Specifically, CRM aims to foster a climate or culture where authority may be respectfully questioned. It recognizes that a discrepancy between what is happening and what should be happening is often the first indicator that an error is occurring"
For commercial aviation, I'd rather take my chances with the crew with 60+ years of combined experience vs. an AI model.
Not at all, CRM is about cognitive and interpersonal skills.
It's completely orthogonal to having some software that monitors the plane for (subtle) faults and unexpected behaviors and provides good contextual information.
> I'd rather take my chances with the crew with 60+ years of combined experience vs. an AI model.
That's a false dichotomy and also I did not talk about AI.
I'd rather take my chances with the crew with 60+ years of combined experience TOGETHER with a all-seeing monitoring system.