4 ms·

Because we simply can't trust computers & systems engineering 100%. Go read about Flight QF72: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-of-qf

Because we simply can't trust computers & systems engineering 100%. Go read about Flight QF72: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless/ http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-o...

rwmj 9y ago
You've mentioned one story, but how about the countless cases where the pilots are the problem?
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  Those are not mutually exclusive. Automation has made flying much safer, but currently, there are edge cases where human could fix issues if they knew what the airplane was doing and were able to take over. This is not an isolated case.
- javindo 9y ago
  As with any automated transport discussion, there's the question of liability. If a pilot is at fault, there's an obvious liability on them. People have an intrinsic trust of a human pilot to sort out an issue if it arises, versus relying on a computer which is a complete black box to the passengers. If a pilot is at fault, it's a forgivable thing - in the worst cases the families have some closure, some level of "the pilot messed up, such is life". If a machine or system is at fault, who's to blame? The engineer? The programmer? The maintenance worker? The airline for procuring a cheap contract?
- dzhiurgis 9y ago
  And there's countless cases where it all starter "autopilot disengaged ..." I don't mind paying 1% of ticket cost to pilots when it's hundreds of life in question. It's very different when you have 500 passengers and 1 passenger in a 35k car.
dorfsmay 9y ago
Or Scandinavian 751, the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7... Automation has made flying safer, as pointed out in the article you link, but we have entered a new era where humans can no longer trust computers nor fully take over control.
- diggan 9y ago
  > the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes I don't know where that part comes from, it's not mentioned in the wikipedia page, nor any of the sources or on the swedish version of the page (together with the sources). Would be interesting if there really is a phobia of more technically advanced airplanes, but I don't think this is one of those cases.
  - dorfsmay 9y ago
    They talked about in one of those crash investigation show. There are research done in this domain, but unfortunately can not find the reference right now. Basically, even though there are less and less airplane accidents, a common theme now is the pilots saying "I don't understand what the plane is doing". PS: This is the pilot in question, there is a reference to the "Mayday" episode where he is interviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_G._Rasmussen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_G._Rasmussen

rwmj 9y ago

You've mentioned one story, but how about the countless cases where the pilots are the problem?

dorfsmay 9y ago
Those are not mutually exclusive. Automation has made flying much safer, but currently, there are edge cases where human could fix issues if they knew what the airplane was doing and were able to take over. This is not an isolated case.
javindo 9y ago
As with any automated transport discussion, there's the question of liability. If a pilot is at fault, there's an obvious liability on them. People have an intrinsic trust of a human pilot to sort out an issue if it arises, versus relying on a computer which is a complete black box to the passengers. If a pilot is at fault, it's a forgivable thing - in the worst cases the families have some closure, some level of "the pilot messed up, such is life". If a machine or system is at fault, who's to blame? The engineer? The programmer? The maintenance worker? The airline for procuring a cheap contract?
dzhiurgis 9y ago
And there's countless cases where it all starter "autopilot disengaged ..." I don't mind paying 1% of ticket cost to pilots when it's hundreds of life in question. It's very different when you have 500 passengers and 1 passenger in a 35k car.

dorfsmay 9y ago

Or Scandinavian 751, the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7... Automation has made flying safer, as pointed out in the article you link, but we have entered a new era where humans can no longer trust computers nor fully take over control.

diggan 9y ago
> the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes I don't know where that part comes from, it's not mentioned in the wikipedia page, nor any of the sources or on the swedish version of the page (together with the sources). Would be interesting if there really is a phobia of more technically advanced airplanes, but I don't think this is one of those cases.
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  They talked about in one of those crash investigation show. There are research done in this domain, but unfortunately can not find the reference right now. Basically, even though there are less and less airplane accidents, a common theme now is the pilots saying "I don't understand what the plane is doing". PS: This is the pilot in question, there is a reference to the "Mayday" episode where he is interviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_G._Rasmussen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_G._Rasmussen