Originally Posted by
Dont Hang Up
Crosswind landing with a fully functional aircraft? I am fine with that.
Carrying out all the correct procedures to deal with an engine fire - not so sure.
I don't know for other operators, but for my operator, we switched to competency based evaluations years ago.
The competencies "procedures" and "decision making" involve : "knows how and when to deviate from standard procedures when safety requires so"
Not being able to do this results in an "unacceptable" mark.
People were kicked out of training at some points because they were unable to deviate from procedures. For example one guy refused to put the gear out before flaps 2 and after flaps 3.
So an autonomous aircraft would also be required to deviate from what it was told, in safety requiring conditions.
Originally Posted by
FlightlessParrot
Not a pilot, but can I ask why you wouldn't trust automation to carry out correct procedures in any situation? I would have thought that the problems would come in the situations where there are no pre-defined correct procedures, perhaps where the only choice is the lesser of two evils, or in those situations where current automation gives up and hands the aeroplane back to the pilot. Check-lists and SOPs, I gather, are responsible for a lot of the improvement in safety; is there a way in which even SOPs have to be performed with human-only nuance? (A real question.)
Exactly.
Let's just hope that artificial intelligence is not already able to do this.
Originally Posted by
AOGspanner
LessThanSte;
About 20% of airlines costs on pilots.
For a large airline, 20% is the cost of the total staff, including cabin crew, ground crew and office teams..
Pilots may represent only a quarter of that so maximum 5% of the cost of an airline.