Originally Posted by Tourist
10 If both engines fail over city, try to land in river if runway not available.
That software didn't seem too difficult to write!
Next!
In all seriousness, and no disrespect to Sullenberger who is an awesome pilot who made the correct decision with the knowledge that he had at the time.
'Miracle on the Hudson' Gets Closer Study, Finds Capt. Sully Sullenberger Could Have Landed at LaGuardia Airport - WSJ
This shows that a computer might have had another option. It would not have to guess, it would know whether it had the reach to get to the runway.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at what some people think is well within the purview of the supposed “all powerful” computer. Computers are certainly a LOT more capable today than they were 50 years ago … but they are a far cry from those that were seen/heard aboard the “Star Ship Enterprise” as it “Boldly Went Were No Man Had Gone Before,” and there is only speculation as to whether or not computers will ever actually function as they were represented on that television series and the television series and movies that followed.
Yes, there are on-going efforts to develop “artificial intelligence,” and in some ways there is some degree of success – but to my knowledge, the basic function of a computer is still an input, a processing of the data, a series of pre-programmed responses is referenced, and one such response is selected and activated. Of course, these input/process/output functions happen very quickly … allowing a mind-numbing number of them to be “processed” very quickly … but if there is an error in any aspect, the output accomplished is very likely to be unsatisfactory … and, while I probably don’t need to say it, … when an “unsatisfactory” output is a potential in an airborne airplane – that simply isn’t “good enough.” Today’s computers do not think – they do not anticipate – they simply compare presently sensed data against what has been preprogrammed, and any response (speed, magnitude, direction, and either hold, release, or return to initial position) would also have to be pre-programmed. When this “if/then” issue is presented and resolved, the computer may then activate whatever control function has been preprogrammed for that specific “if/then” circumstance. At any time a circumstance is presented for which a preprogrammed response is not anticipated, the computer will not respond. It may only take one such circumstance to result in an uncontrolled situation.
As for the comment by Andy Pasztor, in his May 4, 2010, article in the Wall Street Journal, he suggests that perhaps Capt "Sully" Sullenberger may have been able to return to LaGuardia Airport and landed there safely … and the justification he uses is apparently the fact that some number of pilots had been exposed to the same set of circumstances using an airplane flight simulator, and after “…suddenly losing both engines after sucking in birds at 2,500 feet—repeatedly managed to safely land their virtual airliners at La Guardia.” Perhaps Capt. Sullenberger may have been able to do just exactly that. However, at the time, under the existing circumstances, Capt. Sullenberger decided to do what he did. He used all of his background, training, and experience, be they good, bad, or mediocre – in the airplane he was flying and all of the previous airplanes he had flown – and, undoubtedly, all of his fears, and preferences, calling on what he knew, what he knew best, and what he wasn’t sure of … all focused on getting the airplane safely out of the air in a manner that would provide the best possible safety to all on board – and he did it quite successfully.
The issue that many overlook with the use of simulators is that they are exceptionally fine training tools. As such, if someone were to propose, as a training scenario, a circumstance that essentially duplicated Capt. Sullenberger’s situation, the use of a simulator would provide an excellent way to call to the attention of the crew members being trained, the kind of information available, what was not available, what potentials exist at that time, and what were beyond consideration. All of this can be accomplished in an atmosphere of mutual exploration, without even the first “hint” of danger being present. IF, however, any of those crew members who successfully landed the simulator at the LaGuardia airport, were told that they stood to actually lose something they valued very highly – like their current job – if they made a wrong decision or executed any decision in any way except the most advantageous manner … I think it highly likely that not as many would have had the same outcome. Certainly, anyone can understand that a poignantly significant issue is missing in each such “after-the-fact-demonstration” … the fear of losing one’s own life and the lives of all on board that airplane should a mistake be made in executing the decisions and skills necessary to safely return to LaGuardia. It is this over-powering emotion that could easily make otherwise easily made decisions, much more complicated, and perhaps, executed ever so slightly different in the “real world,” than those existing “in the simulated world.” We’re looking at a pure and simple case of “apples” and “oranges” – only on a MUCH more critical level.
I can’t say that “Star Trek” capabilities will be or will not be part of the future of aviation … but I think I can say that it’s not here now … and it is likely that it won’t be for quite a while yet.