http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aK22vWGF.UNw&refer=usThis report of the Accident suggests that the rudimentary Autopilot (actually a pilot assist function that gently pushes the stick in the right direction during a stall) - may have been working correctly, and the Pilot reacted by pulling the plane into a 30 degree up attitude, what follows a 30 degree attitude on a flaps-down plane at landing speed is obvious enough.So I propose that at some point, computers will be better able to calculate the physics of flight in real time than any human pilot, and much better than the average fear-afflicted human pilot. Already, the more complicated airplanes are flown only by computer, and not by pilot (Space Shuttle on Reentry etc...)Have we not passed that point? And is the continued reliance on Human Operators contributing to Air accidents?
Look at the Airplane related deaths over the last decade. Mostly, this is 911 and a few crashes. 911 was a "pilot error" - which would not have occurred if planes were controlled like elevators. This recent accident would not have happened if the autopilot had been left fully engaged (irony - the autopilot disengaged itself - turning the plane over to the inexperienced idiot they hired to replace the tenured pilots which are better paid.)
So my motion is that 100% Autopilots on Commercial flights would have saved 5000 lives in the last decade - including this continental 3407.
I agree humans are occasionally worse than a computer pilot when TSHTF, but, I would not board a 100% computer flown 747 in the forseeable future. There are situations that a human pilot will handle far better than a computer pilot (AA Flight 1549). A man/machine hybrid with man ultimately in control is probably optimal given current technology.
Comments
So my motion is that 100% Autopilots on Commercial flights would have saved 5000 lives in the last decade - including this continental 3407.