Many on here insist on using the very best of human piloting as the standard to beat, but use the worst of automation as if that is as good as it gets.
Sully was not, as is demonstrated repeatedly "what we do"
The
average airline pilot is currently awful.
Yes, they can follow the script, but as soon as things are abnormal, they/we are abysmal.
The only reason that the safety statistics have improved so much over the years is engineering brilliance.
The simple fact is that automation has already quietly replaced what used to be "what we do"
to enormous benefit.
TCAS and EGPWS are a tacit admission that humans are not very good. In most aircraft the pilot is still in the loop when carrying out an RA or a "pull up".
This is not due to a recognition that the pilot helps the operation of these systems, it is merely a way of smoothing their entry into service.
The more modern aircraft coming into service have the systems integrated with the autopilot due to the recognition that the only effect that a human has on these safety systems is to add errors.
Automation has been coming into service slowly but surely for decades.
The upshot of this is a huge increase in safety.
Can anybody on this forum come up with a single automated system that has been added since the dawn of civil aviation that has not contributed to safety?
We are currently in an uncomfortable transition period which hold neither the best aspects of automation or human input.
Anybody that tries to suggest they have any understanding of automation by saying they have "10000hrs Airbus" is delusional.
The airbus systems are from the 70's
Remember cars from the 70's?
Mobile phones?
Televisions?
Due to certification issues, it is easier to just stay with that old dross for now.
That is not because they are any good, because they are dross.
Baby SEP aircraft have far superior avionics to an airbus now.
An average A380 has about 600 times the processing power in the passengers mobile phones alone compared to the computers running the systems.
Systems which, incidentally are
not designed to be autonomous!
To say that without a human airbuses would be dangerous is missing the point. They were never designed to be autonomous so they are not. If they were, then they would be.
People keep using the Qantas A380 as an example of why you need human pilots.
They forget, of course that that aircraft was not carrying the normal crew.
With just 2 pilots, how would they have done?
At least an automated system could have run through the million ECAM pages in about 2 seconds.
The important metric is not whether an automated aircraft can beat a human pilot in all cases.
Currently, it cant.
The important metric is whether it has less accidents overall.
Due to the fact that the vast majority of accidents are human error, then I think that is easy to achieve.
People also keep saying that computers are programmed by humans so there will still be human error miss two very important points.
1. Each error will only be made once. After that, the scenario will be sent around and no other automated aircraft will ever make that error again.
2. It really doesn't work that way. There was a time when "hand made" was a symbol of quality. Nowadays, if you want something engineered properly and consistently you use a machine. That machine may have been programmed by a human, but it does not make mistakes like a human.
Some may think "ignorant" is a harsh epithet under the circumstances.
I disagree.
I have had these discussions with uplinker before. I have given extensive references/videos/NASA articles/TED talks to all the points raised.
I covered see and avoid, neural nets, learning computers,
At no stage has he rebutted a single one of these points with any evidence whatsoever beyond statements of opinion given as facts.
That, in my opinion is ignorance personified.
If any of you are interested, here is the link to a previous thread where most of this is covered.
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...article-5.html
I would be genuinely interested in debating any of the point if you think my references don't cover the points adequately or you have evidence that I am wrong.
I see no point though if the answer is "you are wrong"