3 ms·

"Why would you even make this software accessible from the ground?" Redundancy. If something goes wrong with your software, you want a backup. So you either

by uptown 12y ago

"Why would you even make this software accessible from the ground?" Redundancy. If something goes wrong with your software, you want a backup. So you either keep a pilot in the cockpit like the article mentions, or you give up all hope of recovering from the unexpected technical malfunction. The problem is, the wort case scenarios where there's value in having both a pilot and co-pilot on-board likely cannot be programmed against. Sully did a great job landing in the Hudson river, but he had a co-pilot's help. Would a solo pilot unaccustomed to doing much in the cockpit have been as successful alone? Impossible to day.

ghostberry 12y ago
The pilots controls aren't directly connected to the flight surfaces any more, and haven't been for decades. So they're already going through software, which could go wrong. And if the aircraft detects something is wrong, it could alert the ground, and then it could be flown remotely by a specially trained group of pilots and engineers who do nothing but practice controlling aircraft in trouble, or actually fly aircraft that are in trouble.
- aaronem 12y ago
  > The pilots controls aren't directly connected to the flight surfaces any more, and haven't been for decades True for Airbus, (mostly) not for Boeing -- the first Boeing product with FBW is the 777, and it goes well out of its way to provide control feedback similar to a non-FBW system. And FBW equipment is hardly a panacea. You might consider looking closely at Air France 447, which crashed with the loss of all souls aboard as a direct result of its FBW system not providing realistic feedback. In a non-FBW aircraft, or even in a 777, it would not have been possible for an inexperienced copilot to stall the aircraft all the way from cruise altitude to impact, without anyone else in the cockpit being aware of what was going on. Remote control isn't a panacea, either. What happens when that system is also compromised by whatever mishap has the aircraft in trouble to begin with? With a pilot on board, it's possible at least some of those aboard the aircraft might survive. With an empty cockpit and an R/C remote, everyone on board is almost certainly going to die.

by uptown 12y ago

ghostberry 12y ago

The pilots controls aren't directly connected to the flight surfaces any more, and haven't been for decades. So they're already going through software, which could go wrong. And if the aircraft detects something is wrong, it could alert the ground, and then it could be flown remotely by a specially trained group of pilots and engineers who do nothing but practice controlling aircraft in trouble, or actually fly aircraft that are in trouble.

aaronem 12y ago
> The pilots controls aren't directly connected to the flight surfaces any more, and haven't been for decades True for Airbus, (mostly) not for Boeing -- the first Boeing product with FBW is the 777, and it goes well out of its way to provide control feedback similar to a non-FBW system. And FBW equipment is hardly a panacea. You might consider looking closely at Air France 447, which crashed with the loss of all souls aboard as a direct result of its FBW system not providing realistic feedback. In a non-FBW aircraft, or even in a 777, it would not have been possible for an inexperienced copilot to stall the aircraft all the way from cruise altitude to impact, without anyone else in the cockpit being aware of what was going on. Remote control isn't a panacea, either. What happens when that system is also compromised by whatever mishap has the aircraft in trouble to begin with? With a pilot on board, it's possible at least some of those aboard the aircraft might survive. With an empty cockpit and an R/C remote, everyone on board is almost certainly going to die.