7 ms·

Wait, how does the article support your statement? The article concludes with this bit from it’s quoted “expert”: “Langewiesche thinks that we are ultimately h

by ramzyo 9y ago

Wait, how does the article support your statement? The article concludes with this bit from it’s quoted “expert”: “Langewiesche thinks that we are ultimately heading toward pilotless planes. And by the time that happens, the automation will be so good and so reliable that humans, with all of their fallibility, will really just be in the way.” Also, I don’t have a hard number for this, but most commercial aviation crashes (like the Air France one, Colgan Air in 2009, AirAsia a few years ago) are due to pilot error or factors that don’t have to do with automation vs pilots (Malaysian Air that was shot down over Ukraine, TWA 800, and others)

sokoloff 9y ago
You can't just look at the crashes without giving offsetting credit for crashes avoided by human intervention. (USAir 1549 or United 232 as possible examples.)
- ramzyo 9y ago
  True, those are good counter examples, thanks for sharing. Here’s a reference from the BBC (sourcing a Boeing report from 2003) that states that approximately 80% of commercial aviation accidents were caused by pilot error (when the study was performed in 2003). http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130521-how-human-error-can-cause-a-plane-crash http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130521-how-human-error-can...
  - lostboys67 9y ago
    Blaming the dead pilots is easy as my Uncle (ex Merchant Marine) said about the Concordia sinking - they always crucify the captain.
    - kk_cz 9y ago
      You mean that guy who brought the ship dangerously close to an island (300m vs the planned 8km), because he watned to impress his girlfriend and then "accidentaly" fell into a lifeboat and left the sinking ship? Not the best example IMHO.
      - lostboys67 9y ago
        True My Uncle had met him when the concordias captain went to Warsash (one of the Uk's training colleges) and wasn't impressed. I think his point was they always crucify the captain even if its not their direct fault
  - abricot 9y ago
    Just because they are Pilot error doesn't necessarily mean that the machine would have done better.
    - ramzyo 9y ago
      Very true
MengerSponge 9y ago
Langewiesche thinks that, and I think he's wrong. The only craft we've ever managed to automate well enough to eliminate the human operator is the elevator. In a generation, we'll probably add fighter pilots to that list. Commercial pilots? Nah. Not with the current paradigm of passenger planes.
- ramzyo 9y ago
  Interesting, so the purpose of linking the article wasn’t to support your point? Regarding the elevator comment - what about light rail at airports? Terminal to terminal “air trains” don’t have human drivers. Also, how would you counter the statistic that 80% of commercial aviation crashes are caused by pilot error (see my above comment for source)? This would seem to suggest that continuing to improve automation with the goal of removing the human altogether would reduce the number of crashes, assuming the automation wouldn’t make the same mistakes as the human.
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    Not only light rail at airports - there are whole subway lines and systems that are fully automated (e.g. Copenhagen)
  - MengerSponge 9y ago
    The story I linked had a lot of information about automation. I've taken the information from that story and combined it with my interactions with computer programmers, business executives, and pilots to synthesize the opinion that fully automated commercial airplanes aren't viable. "Air trains" and some subway lines/systems are automated. Interesting that the only systems that have successfully been automated are literally on rails, and are generally enclosed. It's a fair assumption that the automation won't make the same mistakes as a human, but it's quite a stretch to assume it won't make it's own special flavor of mistake. Also, you've pointed out the crashes that humans caused, but not the crashes that were avoided by humans. This is getting far from my field of expertise, but you've got to be careful to avoid selection bias.
    - 9y ago

by ramzyo 9y ago

sokoloff 9y ago

You can't just look at the crashes without giving offsetting credit for crashes avoided by human intervention. (USAir 1549 or United 232 as possible examples.)

ramzyo 9y ago
True, those are good counter examples, thanks for sharing. Here’s a reference from the BBC (sourcing a Boeing report from 2003) that states that approximately 80% of commercial aviation accidents were caused by pilot error (when the study was performed in 2003). http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130521-how-human-error-can-cause-a-plane-crash http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130521-how-human-error-can...
- lostboys67 9y ago
  Blaming the dead pilots is easy as my Uncle (ex Merchant Marine) said about the Concordia sinking - they always crucify the captain.
  - kk_cz 9y ago
    You mean that guy who brought the ship dangerously close to an island (300m vs the planned 8km), because he watned to impress his girlfriend and then "accidentaly" fell into a lifeboat and left the sinking ship? Not the best example IMHO.
    - lostboys67 9y ago
      True My Uncle had met him when the concordias captain went to Warsash (one of the Uk's training colleges) and wasn't impressed. I think his point was they always crucify the captain even if its not their direct fault
- abricot 9y ago
  Just because they are Pilot error doesn't necessarily mean that the machine would have done better.
  - ramzyo 9y ago
    Very true

MengerSponge 9y ago

Langewiesche thinks that, and I think he's wrong. The only craft we've ever managed to automate well enough to eliminate the human operator is the elevator. In a generation, we'll probably add fighter pilots to that list. Commercial pilots? Nah. Not with the current paradigm of passenger planes.

ramzyo 9y ago
Interesting, so the purpose of linking the article wasn’t to support your point? Regarding the elevator comment - what about light rail at airports? Terminal to terminal “air trains” don’t have human drivers. Also, how would you counter the statistic that 80% of commercial aviation crashes are caused by pilot error (see my above comment for source)? This would seem to suggest that continuing to improve automation with the goal of removing the human altogether would reduce the number of crashes, assuming the automation wouldn’t make the same mistakes as the human.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  Not only light rail at airports - there are whole subway lines and systems that are fully automated (e.g. Copenhagen)
- MengerSponge 9y ago
  The story I linked had a lot of information about automation. I've taken the information from that story and combined it with my interactions with computer programmers, business executives, and pilots to synthesize the opinion that fully automated commercial airplanes aren't viable. "Air trains" and some subway lines/systems are automated. Interesting that the only systems that have successfully been automated are literally on rails, and are generally enclosed. It's a fair assumption that the automation won't make the same mistakes as a human, but it's quite a stretch to assume it won't make it's own special flavor of mistake. Also, you've pointed out the crashes that humans caused, but not the crashes that were avoided by humans. This is getting far from my field of expertise, but you've got to be careful to avoid selection bias.
  - 9y ago