3 ms·
I think that's the only possible counterpoint, really. But the override should be constructed so that it can only put the plane onto a "safe" autopilot route.
by msandford 12y ago
I think that's the only possible counterpoint, really. But the override should be constructed so that it can only put the plane onto a "safe" autopilot route. And even then, I'm not really sure if that's actually safe without giving the plane collision avoidance, because it's entirely conceivable that in some urban airports just reverting to straight and level could cause a crash.
If you're descending into an airport near NYC it's possible that you need to fly towards the city, turn and then continue descending to land. If you hit the autopilot external override at the right time you could be lower than the tallest buildings and get locked into flying into them without enough time to react.
The real solution would seem to be what other people in the thread are suggesting; you must always have two people in the cockpit. At least one pilot and possibly another crew member.
- jwalton 12y agoThe autopilot on modern aircraft is more than capable of landing the plane. I have a friend who flies for Air Canada who tells me that Air Canada requires pilots to be in manual control of the aircraft from takeoff to 500 feet, but after that the pilot can put the plane in autopilot and not touch anything until they're on the ground if she wants to. The plane will even apply breaking thrust after touchdown and bring the plane to a stop. At this point, pilots are really there to take care of unusual situations that the computer can't (which do happen from time to time.)
- CPLX 12y agoThe idea that a pilot could put a plane on autopilot soon after takeoff and then "not touch anything" and end up landed on the ground again is patently ludicrous. There are certainly things that automatic controls can do to make flying and landing a plane easier but they don't resemble your description at all. Source: I have a pilots license.