4 ms·

Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. It might make sense at some point in the future where

Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. It might make sense at some point in the future where an autopilot system knows how to taxi, take off, troubleshoot issues by itself during the critical phases of flight and so on. And like others said, aviation is one of the safest industries on the planet.

konschubert 3y ago
> Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. What makes you think so?
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  Because computers don’t have instincts. And don’t get nuances of communication or instructions.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    I don’t need nuances I need to know if the runway is clear or not.
    - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
      You are nitpicking at this point. A runway may be clear when given the clearance to land. And that happens about 4NM from the RWY threshold. In the meantime a incursion might happen. Given low visibility you may not see it as you land a big airplane whose nose is a bit high up because of the flare. And even if you see it, it takes a few seconds for engines to spool up to full power in order to do a go-around.
sammy2255 3y ago
>Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. Why? Human to human leaves room for error and misinterpretation.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  Not really. If an instruction is unclear the pilot will ask again for a repeat. Or if the instruments show everything to look normal but the plane doesn’t feel right, the pilot will correct it, a computer will not. Think of the 737 Max whose computers crashed two planes because of incorrect sensor data being fed to them. The pilots there tried to rescue the planes while the planes were following their logic, which was flawed.
  - murderfs 3y ago
    > If an instruction is unclear the pilot will ask again for a repeat. Except when they don't, and confirmation bias themselves into doing the wrong thing. The most likely cause of a plane crash is pilot error, and runway incursions happen shockingly often [1][2][3][4]. The only reason there hasn't been a Tenerife-style disaster is sheer luck. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26NcJCLZl4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26NcJCLZl4 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AbpxqtXcPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AbpxqtXcPk 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2rJhdvguc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2rJhdvguc 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPJjw68RI2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPJjw68RI2w (the pilots did everything right here, it was the controller who screwed up!)
    - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
      Look, incidents happen all the time in any industry. And for the five examples of human error you have thousands of examples where humans performed very well. Computers are not infailable either. So while they add a lot of safety features and ease the workload of the pilots, they should not have final authority over pilot actions. 737 Max is a prime example of why.
      - shiroiuma 3y ago
        737MAX is what happens when you have a bad plane design because of bad regulations, and corporate execs intentionally make the existence of a plane system a secret from pilots so that they don't need retraining. An incident like that should result in prison time, if not outright execution. It is not a good example of the downfalls of an added safety feature; the MCAS system wasn't a safety feature at all, it was much more like the emissions-cheating "feature" in VW's "dieselgate" scandal.

konschubert 3y ago

> Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. What makes you think so?

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
Because computers don’t have instincts. And don’t get nuances of communication or instructions.
- konschubert 3y ago
  I don’t need nuances I need to know if the runway is clear or not.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    You are nitpicking at this point. A runway may be clear when given the clearance to land. And that happens about 4NM from the RWY threshold. In the meantime a incursion might happen. Given low visibility you may not see it as you land a big airplane whose nose is a bit high up because of the flare. And even if you see it, it takes a few seconds for engines to spool up to full power in order to do a go-around.

sammy2255 3y ago

>Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. Why? Human to human leaves room for error and misinterpretation.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
Not really. If an instruction is unclear the pilot will ask again for a repeat. Or if the instruments show everything to look normal but the plane doesn’t feel right, the pilot will correct it, a computer will not. Think of the 737 Max whose computers crashed two planes because of incorrect sensor data being fed to them. The pilots there tried to rescue the planes while the planes were following their logic, which was flawed.
- murderfs 3y ago
  > If an instruction is unclear the pilot will ask again for a repeat. Except when they don't, and confirmation bias themselves into doing the wrong thing. The most likely cause of a plane crash is pilot error, and runway incursions happen shockingly often [1][2][3][4]. The only reason there hasn't been a Tenerife-style disaster is sheer luck. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26NcJCLZl4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26NcJCLZl4 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AbpxqtXcPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AbpxqtXcPk 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2rJhdvguc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2rJhdvguc 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPJjw68RI2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPJjw68RI2w (the pilots did everything right here, it was the controller who screwed up!)
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    Look, incidents happen all the time in any industry. And for the five examples of human error you have thousands of examples where humans performed very well. Computers are not infailable either. So while they add a lot of safety features and ease the workload of the pilots, they should not have final authority over pilot actions. 737 Max is a prime example of why.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      737MAX is what happens when you have a bad plane design because of bad regulations, and corporate execs intentionally make the existence of a plane system a secret from pilots so that they don't need retraining. An incident like that should result in prison time, if not outright execution. It is not a good example of the downfalls of an added safety feature; the MCAS system wasn't a safety feature at all, it was much more like the emissions-cheating "feature" in VW's "dieselgate" scandal.