Originally Posted by Herod
The caption to the picture says "The 2009 Hudson River heroics could have been performed by a machine". OK, how do you programme a machine for "Ooops, we've just lost both engines. We can't turn back, we can't make Teterboro. I know, let's ditch in the Hudson"? It wasn't just Sully's flying skill that saved the day, it was his HUMAN decision-making.
It's ironic the constant talking about the Hudson landing as an example of human vs machine.
In fact, the landing was highly aided by automation... The protections kicked in several times, and when the plane actually landed on the river, Sully inputs were practically being ignored.
Had Sully been piloting a Boeing, the outcome could have been very different.
Regarding fully automated airplanes, it's not going to happen in the short term... Not that's technically impossible, it's more than possible, but the costs and other factors (liability, when an accident happen, who is liable?) would never justify the adoption in the near future.
Now, it's obvious that in the long term,
it's going to happen.
Regards.