CONSO
Wrong
Boeing has FADEC on the engines. A computer hack means you have lost your engines.
We ignore FADEC and have got used to it because it never fails, but it is a computer and it is 100% required to fly the aircraft.
If the FADEC fails, the aircraft is lost
Slast
Your question about sensors requiring responses and not getting the right one is another area where computers are better.
After an F15 incident and post the Sioux City crash NASA did some work on exactly that sort of problem. This is a long time ago, and the learning systems were so good that the poblem became opaque to the people on board.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...main_srfcs.pdf
This is old tech. A problem solved.
vmandr
Please make sense.
Herod.
You are acting as if the computer must be blind.
Can we just have a reality check here for a moment re the situational awareness bit.
Does anybody think that for the last 30 years, fighter pilots find other aircraft using their eyes?
No, they don't. They have systems which do a far better job.
Modern military aircraft have a range of sensors which surpass the human eye in every way. Google F35 EO DAS.
AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35
This is obviously aside from the fact that the eye has already been considered and discarded as a reliable method of not hitting aircraft.
It's so bad that we invented TCAS.
In VMC, are you allowed to disregard TCAS?
No.
Essentially, we are already relying on automated systems for aircraft avoidance.
You will note that I am attempting to add references and evidence to turn my opinions into accepted facts.
Just saying things without any supporting evidence is fairly worthless and does not contribute to the debate.