Originally Posted by bubbers44
Standard toaster. Yes, Sully would have been able to do what he did in direct law with no problem. Any competent pilot should be able to do the flying part as well as he did.
How can you be so sure?
In Direct Law the plane behaves differently of what the pilot is used to, so...
Originally Posted by bubbers44
The judgement part on deciding exactly where to navigate to given his altitude, speed and options for touchdown point he could just as easily have done in any Boeing product flying manually.
Once again, maybe, maybe not.
Matter of fact is that in the case of Sully, protections were activated. If they were not, they plane would have stalled. Or did he fly in a way that forced them to activate because he knew he was in Normal Law?
Originally Posted by bubbers44
No computer could be programmed for every conceivable condition.
And they don't have to be programmed to respond to every conceivable situation, they just need to be programmed to stay out of those situations in the first place.
What most people fail to understand (or simply don't want to), is that the human/s in the cockpit is responsible for the crashes most of the time. The human is the weakest link, that's it. And it's not only in flying, but driving and so on.
And to the opponents of automation, the automation has to be perfect in order to replace the human. Well, that's impossible, but isn't it enough to be much better?
Let me give you an example: the self driving car. If all cars were self driven, what would be the accident rate? Extremely low. But would it be zero? No, because that's impossible. So, if the rate is not zero, is that a reason to rule out the technology? Of course not.
The same applies to the aviation. When automation is discussed, there is a trend to give examples of the exception, when the human "saved the day" not the norm, when the human caused the crash.
Regards