Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

Article on the theme of a recent forum discussion from today's DT technology pages (paywalled):

"Airbus is ready to fly pilotless planes - but would you trust a robot with your life?"

Would you fly on a pilotless plane? Do you trust a computer to propel you across the skies more than a highly-trained human operator?

These are the questions Christian Scherer of Airbus was posing at the Paris Air Show this week when he said that the aircraft developer already has “the technology for autonomous flying”.

“This is not a matter of technology — it’s a matter of interaction with the regulators, the perception in the traveling public,” he told the Associated Press.

“When can we introduce it in large commercial aircraft? That is a matter we are discussing with regulators and customers, but technology-wise, we don’t see a hurdle.”

So the technology behind pilotless planes is ready, but are we? Research by UBS in 2017 claims that more than half of us wouldn't step foot on one - even if it is safer.

There is a widely held belief that commercial flights are largely handled by autopilots already. But while some might harbour the mistaken belief that airline pilots can kick back and read the newspaper while a computer does all the work, most of us are at least reassured at the presence of a human professional behind the stick.

The truth is a lot more complicated, of course, with pilots fundamentally still in control, using the automation to aid them across our skies. The vast majority of touchdowns are still handled manually, even if many modern planes are capable of auto-landing, while all commercial take-offs are performed by the pilot.

As it is, public confidence in automated planes may be at an all-time low following the two fatal crashes of Boeing’s 737 Max 8 between October 2018 and March this year. Investigators were reportedly focussed on an apparent malfunction of the aircraft’s anti-stall system that sent the jets into a nosedive. This model of aircraft has been grounded ever since.

Just days before the first tragic crash, it was reported that a third aircraft malfunctioned in an identical way but disaster was averted by an off-duty pilot on-board who knew how to correct the fault. What if that highly-skilled pilot had not been on board?

And why were the poor pilots of the doomed airliners not similarly equipped to deal with the situation? According to the Wall Street Journal, the anti-stall systems were not explained fully to crew as they were deemed too complex. Perhaps therein lies an issue of over-reliance and over-confidence in technology that, essentially, has the lives of hundreds of passengers in its hands. And lack of confidence in their human handlers.

But there is a significant flipside to all of this. There is no doubt that the vast majority of technological advancements in aerospace are core to why modern commercial flights are as safe as they are for pilots and passengers alike. The UBS research said that 80pc of aircraft crashes are down to human error.

What is not included in these statistics and stories, of course, is the times that often mundane pilot interaction has kept the automation on track. “Every single day pilots have to intervene when the automatics don't do what they're supposed to,” British Airline Pilots Association's (Balpa) flight safety specialist told the BBC. “Computers can fail, and often do, and someone is still going to be needed to work that computer.”

Scherer said that the Boeing crashes “highlighted and underlined the need for absolute, uncompromising safety in this industry, whether from Airbus, Boeing or any other plane”.

This would extend to any autonomous aircraft too. The initial goal is to reduce the number of pilots from the industry standard of two to one, before removing the need for a human pilot altogether. At each stage this asks the question of: what do you trust more? A highly advanced, rigorously tested computer or a highly trained, conscientiousness and adaptable human pilot.

For my part, I probably would board a pilotless plane if they had been tested to the point of similar near-infallibility to current air travel. Eventually the technology will become so advanced as to achieve that aim.

But my primal instinct lies in that the current combination of man and machine remains the most effective solution. It will take a lot of convincing me - and the rest of the skyfaring public - that a computer could do the job better on its own if companies like Airbus want pilotless planes to take off."

[miltiades]

Personally I would not trust a robot anymore than I would trust ....Paphitis !!!