4 ms·

Along these lines, would an autopilot ever think of landing in the Hudson? (Particularly if it hadn't been done before?)

java-man 6y ago
One side benefit of using robotic planes (in theory) is that the fleet can be OTA'd to include emergency water landings, once the models are updated.
hanniabu 6y ago
Devil's advocate: Would a human pilot be skilled and lucky enough to pull this off a second time?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  IMO, the critical thing the human crew did in US1549 was the decision to take the Hudson; once they decided that, most crews could pull off the execution of that decision. (Then the presence/absence of boat traffic comes down to luck.)
  - outworlder 6y ago
    > once they decided that, most crews could pull off the execution of that decision That's not correct. Ditching is very hard. Mess up your angle or sink rate or roll even slightly and you'll be in pieces. Same if the water doesn't cooperate. One interesting thing is that it happened with an Airbus. The flight computers actually modified Sully's inputs on pitch by about 2 degrees, which ensured a softer splashdown than what Sully was commanding. But that was a very subtle adjustment. Sully was an experienced pilot, with Glider training too.
- generatorguy 6y ago
  Yes. The aviation system produced the human pilot who was able to transfer their skills and experience from all previous landings to this new unusual one. I do believe another equally as well trained pilot would have been able to pull it off as well. What would a computer program have done?
  - unionemployee 6y ago
    Perhaps pilots of previous generations could do this but, having trained numerous pilots for international airlines, as well as pilots for "fee-for-departure" (regional) airlines in the US, I wonder how many crews are up there that could competently handle most catastrophic events. Though I didn't train him directly, the pilot who crashed the Atlas 767 was pushed through the training program I worked for. Described as a "train wreck" in articles, his ability level was characteristic of others I trained (which I regret). Major US carriers do well screening their pilots but, at lower tiers of US aviation employment, I wonder if more automation would be the safer choice.
foxdev 6y ago
Pilots train for water landings. Why wouldn't an automated system get the same training?
- liability 6y ago
  Human pilots are trained in how to ditch, but the decision to ditch in that scenario was, as far as I'm aware, an instance of creative problem solving.
- mopsi 6y ago
  Before Hudson, the idea of a water landing looked like this: https://youtu.be/RM7zMW8WVYU?t=19 https://youtu.be/RM7zMW8WVYU?t=19 It was not considered a serious option.
loeg 6y ago
Taking a step back, do we want autopilots flying over a dense population center like NYC?

java-man 6y ago

One side benefit of using robotic planes (in theory) is that the fleet can be OTA'd to include emergency water landings, once the models are updated.

hanniabu 6y ago

Devil's advocate: Would a human pilot be skilled and lucky enough to pull this off a second time?

sokoloff 6y ago
IMO, the critical thing the human crew did in US1549 was the decision to take the Hudson; once they decided that, most crews could pull off the execution of that decision. (Then the presence/absence of boat traffic comes down to luck.)
- outworlder 6y ago
  > once they decided that, most crews could pull off the execution of that decision That's not correct. Ditching is very hard. Mess up your angle or sink rate or roll even slightly and you'll be in pieces. Same if the water doesn't cooperate. One interesting thing is that it happened with an Airbus. The flight computers actually modified Sully's inputs on pitch by about 2 degrees, which ensured a softer splashdown than what Sully was commanding. But that was a very subtle adjustment. Sully was an experienced pilot, with Glider training too.
generatorguy 6y ago
Yes. The aviation system produced the human pilot who was able to transfer their skills and experience from all previous landings to this new unusual one. I do believe another equally as well trained pilot would have been able to pull it off as well. What would a computer program have done?
- unionemployee 6y ago
  Perhaps pilots of previous generations could do this but, having trained numerous pilots for international airlines, as well as pilots for "fee-for-departure" (regional) airlines in the US, I wonder how many crews are up there that could competently handle most catastrophic events. Though I didn't train him directly, the pilot who crashed the Atlas 767 was pushed through the training program I worked for. Described as a "train wreck" in articles, his ability level was characteristic of others I trained (which I regret). Major US carriers do well screening their pilots but, at lower tiers of US aviation employment, I wonder if more automation would be the safer choice.

foxdev 6y ago

Pilots train for water landings. Why wouldn't an automated system get the same training?

liability 6y ago
Human pilots are trained in how to ditch, but the decision to ditch in that scenario was, as far as I'm aware, an instance of creative problem solving.
mopsi 6y ago
Before Hudson, the idea of a water landing looked like this: https://youtu.be/RM7zMW8WVYU?t=19 https://youtu.be/RM7zMW8WVYU?t=19 It was not considered a serious option.

loeg 6y ago

Taking a step back, do we want autopilots flying over a dense population center like NYC?