Re: "
It cannot recognize that the runway is wet and that landing fast and long is not a good idea. You still need head mounted computer to resolve that."
I don’t agree with this completely. Many landing accidents have similarities with other human error accidents. In these, the crew either failed to identify the conditions, or after detecting the situation, failed to act correctly (incorrect choice of action); the latter is perhaps more prevalent in landing overruns.
Although a computer (technology), may not be able to detect the landing conditions with sufficient accuracy to calculate the landing performance, there are components of existing systems which could provide an alert of increased risk – FMS wind, +windshield wipers in use, +approach speed for FMS wt, and +flight path angle/altitude.
A simple computation (energy?) could provide an alert when a ‘risky’ situation exists – a heads up to the crew, “have you seen this”, “have you considered … “; i.e. time to start thinking.
Alerting of this form is the basis of cross crew monitoring and CRM/intervention; however, both pilots could be subject to error simultaneously, and also there are personality issues such that the alert may not be given.
The advantage of a technology based alert is that humans are biased towards it – we like to believe what computers tell us.
Now consider a higher level of alert like EGPWS. This is a highly reliable system where failure to heed the warnings could indicate irrational behavior; yet some pilots do not pull-up.
For EGPWS, the higher level of technology with auto pull-up may provide the necessary stimulus. It would be a brave or foolhardy pilot who did not allow the autopilot to pull-up, and even if it was decided to overrule the warning, there has to be a conscious effort to disconnect the autopilot and maneuver the aircraft.
IIRC this is ‘technology aided decision making’ where significant aspects of a situation are presented to a pilot as a course of action, which once in place the human is biased to agree with what is happening (The Loss Aversion Heuristic).
So its not all bad news about technology: It’s what we use it for and how we use it that matters; it has limits and understanding these is important.
In a similar approach and landing situation, technology might not be able to predict (look ahead, what if) to aspects of a situation which a humans could judge better – if only the human would ‘look ahead’.
E.g. a storm passing over the airport presents hazards of windshear, lightning, turbulence, but once clear, a landing may be attempted in relative safety, but what reminds the pilot to consider that the storm could have flooded the runway, and that outflow winds could give a tailwind – similar situation as above, different time frame – the future. Solutions to this type of problem probably require human thought, but it is that always forthcoming; are humans any more reliable than computers?
Errors in Aviation Decision Making.
Analyzing Explanations for Seemingly Irrational Choices.
Perspectives on Human Error.