> There is no monitoring system that is aware of the full context, including the state of the plane, the history of previous warnings or malfunctions and the in

> There is no monitoring system that is aware of the full context, including the state of the plane, the history of previous warnings or malfunctions and the intentions of the pilots. Its called the pilot. We even include a second system, fully programmed and built entirely by a separate team, to double-check and challenge the primary system: the copilot. > Plenty of accidents follow similar patters: pilots forgot to enable some warning system, or ignored a warning because it came up in the wrong context, or where overwhelmed by the amount of checklists they had to do or by multiple alarms coming up at the same time. And yet, commercial aviation is by far safer than driving. General aviation, with fewer of these systems is roughly the same as driving. You also day plenty of accidents, but I'd be willing to bet that just as many if not more were situations beyond the pilots control. You're also not comparing it to the number of times that pilots got out of sticky situations by following checklists and/or not having warnings suppressed.