Originally Posted by
CONF iture
To have to deal with conventional problems is far enough, absolutely no need to have to deal with unconventional ones that the supposed magical automation created on its own.
The Airbus was initially designed with protections to correct mistakes made by pilots ... certainly not the other way around.
You are little hung up on the fact that a very old aircraft is not flawless, as if this is somehow a searing indictment of the concept.
It does not have to be flawless, merely on balance equal and cheaper.
Airlines are businesses.
They try to make the best balance of safety and cost.
They are allowed to.
If they can make aircraft without pilots as safe and cheaper or safer at the same price they will.
They do not have to be perfect.
They will still have accidents, probably different ones that many on here will decry as things that would not have happened if a human was on board and "proof" that it was a bad idea, but what matters is whether they have less accidents, not whether they have any.
The equation is really simple.
Are more accidents at the moment "black swan" events where a human
might help, or basic human error events where a computer would have been fine.
I believe it is more the latter already, and as tech advances it will become more and more obvious.
Alf is all about adapting how we use pilots to best effect.
That is all well and good, and a useful interim phase, but we are just nibbling at the edges of the problem which s the simple fact that tech no longer is better at just the blue collar jobs like manufacturing and weaving etc.
The next revolution is here and standing in it's way will just breed a new generation of angry luddites.