3 ms·

True, and you have real pilots. Many really busy airports do visual approaches and I know a couple pilots personally who don't often bother with ILS unless the

True, and you have real pilots. Many really busy airports do visual approaches and I know a couple pilots personally who don't often bother with ILS unless the conditions are bad. Remember in San Fransisco where a plane almost landed on a taxi way instead of the runway? It's worth reading the complex situation with the off-line runway and the way ILS was setup with those runways being so close together, but what prevented the disaster was a pilot in the Taxi line of aircraft getting on the radio and saying, "Where is this guy going?!" and everyone suddenly realizing they were lined up for the Taxi way! Real people, being aware, looking and reacting prevented that accident. That's why human checks and cross-checks are so important.

godelski 7y ago
> I know a couple pilots personally who don't often bother with ILS unless the conditions are bad Because it is a pain. Every pilot has to learn to do visual approaches. I think it just makes one thing apparent though. If we go to fully automated flying then there must ALSO be a visual check. In fact we can make it better than humans because we should make sure that the plane can see through fog. But key point is that there is always some redundancy built in.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  If we go to fully automated flying then there must ALSO be a visual check. I don't think a visual check is needed (otherwise you would be much more limited in where/when you can land), but cross-checking some other data is. Turns out we're already there, and in an ILS approach the pilots should already be checking other instruments.